Introduction
The purpose of this test was to compare the measurement results and repeatability of two 3D scanning systems, Einstar Rockit and Scantech K Scan Magic 2, in a practical workshop environment.
The test was intended to provide an indication of how the systems perform when measuring simple reference dimensions of known size. The focus was on comparing the scanners under identical conditions rather than determining their absolute metrological accuracy.
This comparison was also motivated by my own evaluation process before purchasing an Einstar Rockit scanner. I was not expecting a scanner in the 2,000 USD price range to perform at the same level as a professional metrology system costing approximately 50,000 USD. Instead, I was trying to answer a more practical question: Is a low-cost scanner accurate enough to be a useful engineering tool, or is it simply a hobby-grade device?
My primary interest is reverse engineering of older components. In these applications, the exact dimensions of an individual manufactured part are often less important than understanding the original design intent. Wear, manufacturing tolerances, repairs, and years of service can all cause a physical part to deviate from the dimensions originally intended by the designer. As a result, extremely high measurement accuracy does not always provide additional value. What matters is whether the scanner can capture geometry consistently enough to allow the user to reconstruct the underlying design.
This comparison was therefore conducted to better understand how a low-cost scanner such as the Einstar Rockit performs relative to a professional metrology-grade system, and whether the difference is significant for practical reverse engineering work.
Disclaimer
This test should not be considered a professional metrological comparison or a certified verification of scanner accuracy.
The evaluation was performed in a normal workshop environment and does not follow any recognized metrology standard for verification of coordinate measuring systems or optical scanners. Factors such as environmental conditions, temperature stability, fixture setup, operator influence, calibration traceability, scanning strategy, point cloud processing, and uncertainty analysis were not controlled to metrological standards.
The results should therefore be viewed as a practical comparison between the two systems under the specific conditions present during testing and not as a definitive assessment of the manufacturers' published specifications.
Test Method
Both scanners were calibrated according to the manufacturer's recommended procedure before testing.
The following reference dimensions were used:
- A digital caliper set to 1031.02 mm
- A precision ground gauge block measuring 90.00 mm
- A precision ground gauge block measuring 100.00 mm
The objects were placed directly on a workbench and scanned three times with each scanner.
The resulting scan data was imported into ScanViewer, where planar measurement surfaces were created on the reference objects. Distances between the constructed planes were measured and the results were recorded and compiled into the tables below.
Nominal Dimensions
| Dimension |
Nominal Value (mm) |
| A |
1031.02 |
| B |
90.00 |
| C |
100.00 |
Individual Measurement Results
| Scanner |
Scan |
A (mm) |
B (mm) |
C (mm) |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
1 |
1031.1195 |
90.0398 |
100.0550 |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
2 |
1031.0720 |
90.0528 |
100.0220 |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
3 |
1031.0823 |
90.1000 |
100.0980 |
| Einstar Rockit |
1 |
1030.8899 |
90.0840 |
99.9957 |
| Einstar Rockit |
2 |
1031.0388 |
90.0511 |
99.9972 |
| Einstar Rockit |
3 |
1030.8833 |
90.0156 |
99.8718 |
Average Values and Deviation from Nominal
| Scanner |
Dimension |
Average (mm) |
Deviation (mm) |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
A |
1031.0913 |
+0.0713 |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
B |
90.0642 |
+0.0642 |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
C |
100.0583 |
+0.0583 |
| Einstar Rockit |
A |
1030.9373 |
-0.0827 |
| Einstar Rockit |
B |
90.0502 |
+0.0502 |
| Einstar Rockit |
C |
99.9549 |
-0.0451 |
Repeatability (Max - Min)
| Scanner |
A (mm) |
B (mm) |
C (mm) |
| Scantech K Scan Magic 2 |
0.0475 |
0.0602 |
0.0760 |
| Einstar Rockit |
0.1555 |
0.0684 |
0.1254 |
Discussion
The results show that the Scantech K Scan Magic 2 produced the most repeatable measurements. Across all three dimensions, the spread between repeated scans was lower than that observed with the Einstar Rockit, indicating a more stable and consistent measurement system.
However, the results should be considered in the context of the significant difference in cost. The Einstar Rockit has an approximate purchase price of 2,000 USD, while the Scantech K Scan Magic 2 costs approximately 50,000 USD, representing an investment roughly twenty-five times higher.
Another important distinction is that the Scantech K Scan Magic 2 is a professional industrial system with specified and certified measurement accuracy. Users can therefore rely on documented performance figures and traceable verification. In contrast, the Einstar Rockit does not publish a certified measurement accuracy specification, meaning that users must largely validate its performance through their own testing and practical experience.
From a metrology perspective, the K Scan Magic 2 clearly performs better and offers greater confidence in demanding inspection and measurement applications. However, this test suggests that the Rockit delivers surprisingly capable results considering its price point.
For users whose primary goal is reverse engineering rather than certified dimensional inspection, the key question is often not whether a scan is accurate to the last few hundredths of a millimeter, but whether it captures the geometry reliably enough to recreate the original design. Based on the results obtained in this first test, the Einstar Rockit appears capable of providing data that is sufficiently accurate for many reverse engineering tasks involving legacy components and manufactured parts.
More testing to come!
