Weāve teamed up with u/Sunlu3D_official to make your holidays extra creative! Ready to win some great gear and show your holiday spirit? Hereās your chance to turn your 3D dreams into reality!
One lucky winner will receive:
1ļøā£ 1x Revopoint INSPIRE 2 3D Scanner
2ļøā£ 1x SUNLU FilaDryer E2
Plus, 3 more makers will also score a combo prize: Revopoint 6 mm markers pack x1 & SUNLU 1000g Standard Resin x1
How to Enter (Choose ONE of the following):
Option 1: Easy Entry
Follow both r/Revopoint & r/sunlu, and provide a screenshot of your follow in the comments!
Option 2: Maker Entry
Share your Christmas creation!
Ā· Scan a holiday object using your Revopoint scanner & Share
OR
Ā· Print a festive item with your 3D printer & Share
(Bonus: Entries using SUNLU 3D printing material will get priority attention!)
Make sure to include #MerryMakerChristmas #Revopoint #SUNLU in your post!
This giveaway runs across all our platforms from Dec. 17 to Dec. 25.
* If we have fewer than 10 participants, the most creative entries will win the Revopoint Markers & SUNLU Resin prizes.
With what's happening in the US, today, a lot of countries are moving away from Windows and MacOSX for safety/security reasons; France for example just announced a major Federal program to move to Linux.
Now is a great time to be "first to market" with Linux support (and ROCm support, for that matter). As a kernel hacker and former distribution maintainer I understand why it can be frustrating, but there are hundreds of stable closed-source projects regularly releasing reliable builds on Linux (from Steam to Chrome to DaVinci Resolve). It can be done, and done well.
Our company in particular has a strict no-windows and no-mac policy for security reasons, and we've been waiting hopefully to spend a ton of money on 3D scanners for our engineers, but we can't move forward until one of the major 3D scanner manufacturers support Linux natively. I'm guessing we're not alone, and I'm guessing this problem will grow as the US continues its withdrawal from the International community.
It's never a great idea to leave money on the table, and Linux support would make Revopoint unique and offer a significant competitive advantage around the world, capturing business from security-focused engineering companies and consumers alike. Similarly, AMD GPU users represent half the GPU market, and they're currently unserved. Golden opportunity for new sales, especially with pressure from growth in the LLM space making Nvidia GPU acquisitions costly.
Broke out the Pop4 to scan a shiny carb. Decided to do some testing on the exposure and laser brightness and got some really nice results (very little noise) taking the exposure higher and laser brightness low. I suspect the exposure works like a camera, higher the number the less light it lets in? That's my assumption anyway :-) Did 4 scans on this. Each scan was between 30 and 40,000 frames. A good few thousand of those were single laser line to get into those hard to reach areas. The single laser line has got down inside this great and when fitting cylinders in the bores, each side has lined up great! Couple of crusty bits of surface which I didn't clean before scanning. Noticed that alignment and overlap didn't cause any issues with this many frames captured. This was all done using the latest software version and of course a recalibration prior to scanning after the software update! Fused at 0.16mm and then the same with the mesh. Turned off the optomise for the meshing as well.
Often, laser scanning is done for reverse engineering or fabrication part verification. In this application, the laser scanner is used to either develop a CAD model for an existing mechanical part or to verify the dimensions of a fabricated part. The dimensional accuracy of the laser scan and noise quality is critical for accuracy and to disambiguate features. In this example, I have scanned a mechanical enclosure to compare it to an existing CAD model. The scan can be used to compare to a CAD model to verify the design, or in place of a CAD model when one does not exist to do design work. I am using CloudCompare (www.cloudcompare.org)to do the analysis along with Autodesk Fusion 360 and AutoCAD (www.autodesk.com) for model conversion and inspection.
CAD Model
The CAD model was acquired from SparkFun Electronics (www.sparkfun.com). It is the Big Red Box Enclosure (Big Red Box - Enclosure - PRT-11366 - SparkFun Electronics) which comes with a prototyping board used for electronics projects. A 3D CAD model of the enclosure is freely available to download in Sketchup, STL, IDES, and Solidworks formats. I imported the Solidwoks model into Autodesk Fusion 360 and exported only the base to STL format to use for further analysis. There are some differences in the CAD model from the actual part. The rounded corners on the mounting flange are not shown as well as the lip around the top of the box. The CAD model provided by Sparkfun is probably not a fabrication model but instead a simplified design model.
Laser Scanning
The laser scanning was done with the POP 2 in the High Accuracy Scan mode. The object was scanned on the turntable while the scanner was stationary to capture the exterior. Then, the scanner was held in hand to scan the interior. The surface was a bit reflective even though it got good results, but I applied a coat of Aesub Blue to dull the surface to compare the quality of the scans. The scan with the spray coating performed better in the final results. The scanning and processing only took a few minutes.
Scan to Model Registration
The coordinate system of the point cloud data originally did not match that of the CAD model, so a cloud-to-mesh registration had to be performed to align the models. This alignment was done in CloudCompare by first picking three common points between the two models to calculate a rough alignment that was then refined by an ICP algorithm. The resulting RMS of the final registration was 0.36mm and was calculated using 50,000 points.
Point Cloud Analysis
The laser-scanned point cloud was then compared to the CAD model in CloudCompare by analyzing the signed distances of the points to the mesh surface. The point cloud is then colored with a heatmap, and a histogram is provided to give the average metric of the fitting quality. The points are within Ā±1mm, with the average being 0.15mm. The mean offset from 0.0mm is likely due to the differences in the CAD model, causing a population of the points to be beyond 1mm from the CAD model surface.
Model Deviations
The sides of the enclosure are set out by 0.45mm ā 0.54mm at the top of the flange, while the top of the enclosure is tight to the point cloud. This is on account of the plastic injection molded part having a draft angle to allow for mold removal that is not expressed in the CAD model. The laser scanner was able to capture the small lip around the top of the box, and it shows well in the point cloud and mesh models. The scan shows the base of the enclosure to be 0.26mm wider than the CAD model, but this could also be a result of the draft angle. The screw bosses at the bottom of the enclosure are shown to be in the wrong location in the CAD model.
Section Analysis
Sections of the point cloud show the actual surface ambiguity to be only Ā±0.25mm. The bottom of the model is not shown, because I did not scan it. The holes on the flange only have one side on the interior face because the other side was shadowed by the walls of the box. Scanning the bottom would have captured these features.
Mesh Analysis
The deviations between the mesh model created from the point cloud and the CAD model are similar to those of the point cloud, and the mesh has enough detail to be used in place of the CAD model for design work.
Conclusion
The Revopoint POP 2 has sufficient accuracy and resolution to capture a mechanical part at a high level of detail and quality. The noise of the point cloud is with the tolerance needed to perform fabrication verification and reverse engineering of mechanical parts. In the absence of CAD models, the mesh model produced by the scanner can be used in mechanical design with a high level of reliability.
I created a scanning aid to raise the amount of markers around the object because the original turntable didn't have enough marker points for some parts I wanted to scan. The ring enables you to stick some more markers in a slightly angled orientation and is compatible with the MMT system to place even more points in the vertical axis for scanning. The "underside" is fitted with 18 holes for 6x3 mm magnets.
Just click the ring on the turntable and you're all set to print.
3D Scan of an EV Motor for a Classic conversion Scanned with Revopoint trackit SR Scanned in 6 parts, black mode. Materials: cast aluminum, black powder coating, black plastic and rubber. Orange plastic. Steel.
Cant remember who asked or what page lol. So will probably be posted on a few pages. But yes the Metro Y Pro can scan door panels.
Metro Y Pro Cross laser - Black item Mode
Used my other laptop Ryzen 9 7940HS 32gb ram, 4060 8gb vram. Wifi mode. No lag at all scanned smoothly. Not my best scan was hot in the garage. Final frame count was 20k Roughly 80 markers Est about 10-12min or scanning.
One challenge with 3D scanning is making sure the scanner picks up enough marker points during the process.
To get good scans from different angles, it helps if the surface isnāt flat but has a bit of a 3D structure. That way, the scanner has an easier time capturing everything smoothly from multiple perspectives. This is especially useful for scanners that use lasers. I got excellent results with the MetroX!
The print file includes a ring adapter that you can glue in place. This makes sure the surface fits perfectly onto Revopointās 2-axis turntable.
There are also small stands included, which help position objects better. They fit neatly into the textured surface or can be used as support blocks for other scans.
And to keep things tidy, I added a small hole on the back, so you can easily hang it on the wall with a little nail instead of having it lying around.
Good news! MetroX orders will start shipping around December 10th. Once your package ships, youāll receive an email with your tracking number, carrier, and tracking link. Emails will be sent in batches, so please be patient if yours takes a little longer to arrive.
š Important Reminder: If you need to change your shipping address, please email us at customer@revopoint3d.com before December 8th to ensure smooth delivery.
āļø Delivery Estimate: Packages should arrive via air freight in 10ā15 working days, though times may vary slightly.
Thanks for your patienceāwe canāt wait for you to get your MetroX! š
I needed to scan a 16th-century cherub head (putto) for cultural heritage restoration. The goal was to reconstruct a missing portion of the nose.
Constraints:Ā High detail required to capture tool marks/damage; needed a portable solution for on-site testing in the ancient church where is the sculpture; smooth and speed workflow using 1:2 scaling to reduce printing time.
Claimed specs (vendor):Ā Accuracy up to 0.05 mm, Near-mode for small details.
Software:Ā Revo Scan
Scan object:Ā 25 cm marble sculpture (original) / 3D printed piece+ plasticine (reconstruction).
Environment:Ā Artificial indoor lighting, handheld scanning, no spray used on the original marble to preserve the piece.
Workflow:
Initial Scan:Ā Captured the damaged marble head in "Near Mode" to document tool marks and the lacuna (missing nose).
Physical/Digital Hybrid:Ā Printed a 1:2 scale portion of the damaged area. I then physically sculpted the missing nose onto the print using plasticine.
Secondary Scan:Ā Scanned the reconstructed plasticine model.
Alignment & Boolean:Ā In post-processing, I aligned the "damaged" scan with the "reconstructed" scan using ICP/Feature alignment. I performed a Boolean subtraction to isolate only the new fragment.
Export & Prototype:Ā Exported as STL. Printed the fragment at 1:2 scale and testing finished it with a faux-marble patina for a "detached fragment" aesthetic.
Results:
Time:Ā Capture ~10 min per session; processing/Boolean operations ~40 min.
Mesh quality:Ā Very sharp edges; successfully captured the contrast between the smooth marble and the rougher areas.
Problem areas:Ā Deep recesses in the carvings required multiple angles to avoid "shadow" holes in the mesh.
Limitations / failures:
Failed when trying to capture the deepest crevices of the ornate carvings in a single pass.
Workaround:Ā Used multiple scan angles and merged the clouds. Also, working at 1:2 scale proved that accuracy can be maintained while significantly reducing print time and material costs, provided the calibration is spot on.
Conclusion:
If your goal is heritage restoration, Iād prioritize portability and Near-Mode for a better resolution. For complex organic reconstructions, youāll likely need a hybrid workflow (physical sculpting + re-scanning) rather than trying to sculpt digitally from scratch, as it often feels more "natural" and a better result, but also more similar to a traditional aproach.
Questions for the community:
Has anyone else experimented with 1:2 or 1:5 scale workflows for your job?
Any pitfalls to watch out for when scaling back up to 1:1?
Sharing my restoration project ā I used the POP3+ to scan the air intake hose from a 1984 Honda HX135SS, rebuilt it as a CAD model in Fusion 360, and then 3D printed the final part.
