Hello, is there anyone who has a Creality brand scanner they don’t use anymore and is willing to part with? I’ve done a ton of research on Creality’s scanners and one would work perfect for what I need it for! TIA!
Howdy.
Complete newbie here.
I will preface by saying I am looking for someone to pay to do this project. I will learn eventually, but for now due to time constraints, I do not have time to learn, and I want to pay someone to do scans for me.
I am an antique hand tool dealer. I am looking to have hand planes 3D scanned. I would need a ".step" file/format to send to my contract manufacturer. If any more technical detail is needed on that end, please let me know and I will contact my manufacturer.
The first two pictures I have included are of a base model hand plane. I would disassemble the tool and I would need each part scanned. Some planes are more simple, but this one is of average complexity and composes of around 24 individual components. The third and fourth picture are of the most complex of the tools that would need to be scanned. And although I have not disassembled that one yet, I imagine it has twice as many components at least. These tools range from 5 inches long, to about 2 feet long, though 14" is about the average size for a larger tool needing to be scanned.
The items are antiques. Some are rare and are sold to customers. If possible, even if I have to travel, I would like to hand deliver the tools, stay in town while they are scanned, then return home. The files could be delivered after I returned home as I imagine there will be more work needing done to have finished files.
I hope I have provided adequate information, or at least enough information for the relevant people to get in touch. I am located near Springfield, MO but I am willing to travel. There is a gentleman in Saint Louis who will be available in one month (heath issues), but I would like to start my projects sooner if possible.
Thank you!
Now that the bottom is catching up to the top, much like what happened with 3D Printing over the past 20 years, "inexpensive" 3D Scanners are all the rave. They're accessible which is amazing considering that just 10 years ago anything below $10K would have been laughable.
So now a days we have waaaaaaay more people getting access to this technology and users from all walks of life are trying to scan something. Of course there is the initial "Wow I'm 3D Scanning!!" All with varying degrees of success. Expectations are adjusting in real time in both positive and negative ways.
At the heart of this is the results that any given 3D Scanner mesh gives which is where the post is going.... There's still a huge difference between a $5K and $100K 3D Scanner in many different levels.... BUT the real questions that are coming up is... Is the $5K Scanner enough? Which now falls into a level of subjectivity.
One 3D Scanner's output in another Scanner's garbage....but how would "you" know if that's all you used? This isn't as much a knock against the lower end 3D Scanners as much as there is a lack of comparison because very few users have both ends of the spectrum. There are situations where scanning a car is mission critical and other areas where a user can only start with what they can afford.
When is it ok for a user to say that the inexpensive 3D Scanner is ok when they've never tired a high end hardware/software solution and vice versa? Is there a need for an independent standards that isn't just about metrology or not but about the full range of a 3D Scanners and what they can or not able to do?
Many of these OEM stretch the truth out so much in terms of capability that it leaves a really bad taste in a users mouth that it turns them away entirely.
Thoughts.... Comments?!?
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.
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.
Both scanners were calibrated according to the manufacturer's recommended procedure before testing.
The following reference dimensions were used:
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.
| Dimension | Nominal Value (mm) |
|---|---|
| A | 1031.02 |
| B | 90.00 |
| C | 100.00 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
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!
After scanning, we create a 1:1 replica of the instrument.
Even the slightest dimensional deviation in an instrument can affect its tone, pitch, and volume.
You wouldn't want your technique to be held back by the instrument when performing for your audience, right?
The dimensions measured with our scanner are incredibly precise! What would you like me to scan next?
Hey everyone,
I have continued work on my scan to cad tool I posted about a couple weeks ago and its now somewhat ready for the public!
This is more intended for building parts off of or around scans, more than reverse engineering.
The work flow is:
You can download the software and the test project at www.matterray.com
If you are happy where its at or are keen to come on a journey as I improve and add more features, I have a promo code "LAUNCH20" for 20% off for the first 20 users.
And please come and join the discord for help, faults, requests or general smack talk :)
The part scan is from an EinScan Rigil:
https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/land-rover-part-18afe982522d4d9a9ca5742eddd92701
So, I’ve finally got my hands on an Einstar Rockit, and I thought I’d start doing some real world comparisons.
For my first test, I simply grabbed something that was close by, a Casio calculator, and scanned it with both the Rockit and the ~$50,000 Scantech scanner I normally use.
Before the test, both scanners were calibrated, and both scans were performed using the same 0.2 mm resolution setting to make the comparison as fair as possible.
And I have to say, the result from the Einstar Rockit genuinely impressed me.
I timed the entire workflow, from the moment I clicked the software icon until I had a finished scan. The Rockit actually beat the $50,000 Scantech scanner by a full minute.
I’d say most of that time saving comes from two things. The Rockit is completely wireless, and you don’t have to pre scan the markers like you do with the Scantech.
But the biggest surprise was the scan quality.
The Einstar actually produced the better looking scan.
That was something I honestly didn’t expect going into this comparison. Fine details and edges came out noticeably sharper on the Rockit scan.
There might also be a software related explanation for some of this difference. When ScanViewer converts the Scantech point cloud into a mesh, it seems to apply some degree of smoothing that cannot be completely disabled. This could potentially explain why some of the finer details appear sharper and better defined in the Rockit mesh.
Software wise, I’d also say EXStar Hub beats the version of ScanViewer I’m currently using. The exception is alignment, where I still think the tools in ScanViewer are better.
There is, however, one area where the expensive Scantech scanner clearly wins, and that is precision.
The Scantech was only off by around 0.02 mm, or 20 microns, while the Rockit was off by around 0.1 mm, or 100 microns.
So yes, the Scantech is still considerably more precise.
To be fair to Scantech, the scanner I’m comparing it against is around five years old, and scanner technology has obviously moved forward quite a bit since then.
So this isn’t really about saying that a ~$2,000 scanner is simply better than a $50,000 professional scanner.
What impresses me is just how far the more affordable scanners have come in only a few years.
The Scantech still clearly wins when it comes to precision, but in terms of workflow, ease of use and even the resulting scan quality, the Rockit was surprisingly competitive and actually came out on top in several areas.
For the type of work I’m going to use it for, 0.1 mm accuracy is more than good enough.
Overall, I’m extremely impressed with my new investment. If this is what a scanner in this price range can do today, the gap between professional and budget scanning equipment has become a lot smaller than I expected.
More comparisons to come.
I made a Case for the Creality Pika, Wondering if you guys would be interested.
I Printed it in PLA and TPU inserts, I also used my Laser Cutter to cut Alcantara for the face where the scanner sits so that it does not scratch against the TPU Insert
I will recieve my Pika the day after tomorrow and will check fitment ect, i based my measurements on the 3d scan one of the guys were so nice to upload on this subreddit.
Note:
The case itself is a edited version found on printables:
https://www.printables.com/model/258431-rugged-box-parametric
Small plastic part that needs to be 3D scanned. This is a paid project, budget negotiable. Part is approximately 15×15 cm, needs to be scanned from both sides. Looking for someone based in the US. Please comment or DM with your scanning setup and turnaround time, I'll send photos and full details.
My company has a Keyence VL-500 scanner that we would like to get rid of.
I was just too slow and inaccurate for our inspection requirements but would be great for reverse engineering or low tolerance projects.
Does anyone have any idea who would buy it or who we could donate it too?
I need help finding the right 3d scanner for my husbands birthday and I don’t know here to start please help!
Hi All!
My friend asked me if I could print a latch for his toughbox. I'm wondering if I can ask him to photograph/scan it (iPhone 14, not pro) and send me the files so I can generate the new part.
Is this a feasible ask? What app should I ask him to use (or what app should I use myself on his files) to take this from his photos to a model I can import into Fusion and later print for him?
Thanks for your input!
Turning a physical object into a digital model is really fascinating.
You can even use the model data to create another physical object.
What else would you like to turn into a digital model?
but today I learned that Metro X scanner works lot slower on M-series Apple laptops than on the Windows counterparts.
I do have a decent PC at home with 9950X and RX5700XT with 32GB of RAM, so I figured getting a laptop with strong battery and performance when running on battery like M-series Macbooks should do until I saw one Metro X on sale locally and reason being performance issues on Macs.
Is that valid and known problem or was the seller an exception?
Scanned with PIKA connected PC with cable / blue light mode
3 scans aligned on auto mode
Mesh computed at less than 1m polygons as my PC has curently heating problems
The point cloud still exists, I'll try more polygons as soon as I can
#crealitypika
#CrealityCreatorAwards
#MyCrealityScan
Ford never made it in RHD so I needed to right this wrong. Used a MetroY Ultra scanner to scan my trim piece and the gauges, then reverse engineered them in Fusion and QuickSurface. 3D printed in ABS and then wrapped in alcantara.
Over the last year or so I've been learning cad, CNC plasma cutting, etc. I do a lot of custom work on my cars and friends cars and I've considered getting a scanner. My use case/scenario is the following -
Engine bay/subframe/engine fitment. I'd like to use it for getting more accurate measurements of engines/engine bays for when I make motor mounts.
Rear subframe/wheel well suspension. Same as above. I'd like to be able to scan suspension pieces as well as subframes/partial vehicle undersides for designing custom arms etc.
Maybe some interior work for developing custom pieces for dashboards etc.
The PC I'll be using has an i5 14600k as well as 32gb of memory and a 5060ti (16gb version). Unfortunately the ram situation isn't cheaply upgraded as it's an ITX motherboard so I only have two ram slots.
I understand that scanning items does not give me an actual STL. I'm mainly wanting to use this to take better measurements, and if I need to recreate something for printing/casting/etc etc I understand it takes a lot of post processing work.
The main scanners I was looking at were the Einstar 2 or the Rockit, Creality Raptor Pro, or the Metro Y Pro. Ideally I'd like to stick to the 1k mark but it seems like maybe I need to spend a little more for a better scanner.
Any input is appreciated. I've read through this sub for a few hours and I'm still having trouble understanding which scanner is the best as far as the size/distance of the things I'd like to scan. I'm not too concerned about high resolution scans. Just making sure I get accurate, usable scans. I am not a professional shop, so if processing times/scan times end up taking more time it's not a big deal.
Thank you!
Scanned a tow bar to create a custom fairing for it. Scan itself was done inside a garage with some direct sunlight coming in through the windows.
Scanning was done at 0,75mm target resolution and no scan spray was used, Trackit SR was used wireless. Being wireless I feel a good bit more comfortable having it stand in a crowded space, no danger of somebody tripping over the cables and either ruining my usb ports, the scanner or the scan.
I placed to scanner strategically to ensure the whole tow bar was within the tracking field of view and started scanning in cross lines and auto exposure. Whole scan took roughly 7min with a few times checking for coverage on my tablet (remote desktop to my workstation). Scan process itself was positively unspectacular, just worked (when choosing higher resolutions it hangs sometimes a few seconds. Issue is actively worked on from what I know).
Processing was done by simply fusing at 0,75mm (software even recommended 0,5mm but I didn't need the higher resolution, guess I scanned a bit too long). Then isolation, overlay detection and meshing at 0,75mm. Quicksurface was used for reducing the scan size and aligning the scan. Also removed some marker spheres I placed on the tow bar initially because I was skeptical it could be scanned from one position, didn't need them but also didn't bother removing them initially.
Results look quite good, captured everything I needed. Only thing that bothers me is that I touched one of the cables while scanning so now it is doubled but not needed anyway in this detail...
Sketchfab is like printables for 3d scans with a nice integrated viewer in browser and you can also download the scan, just look at the scan yourself.
Reddit sadly blocks the short links to Sketchfab, you have to search for the title instead: "Tow Bar - Revopoint Trackit SR"
Since a lot of people ask for it:
Like the power bank holder or hanger for the hand: https://www.printables.com/@PrintedForFun/models
Bambu Studio's "Fix Model" only works on Windows (it uses Microsoft's Netfabb
API — confirmed on their own wiki). OrcaSlicer has had open issues about this
since 2023, and a community PR to add MeshLab-based fixing has been sitting
unmerged for over a year.
I hit a broken mesh on Linux and didn't want to learn MeshLab's filter chains
from scratch, so I wrapped PyMeshLab (hole closing, non-manifold repair) and
manifold3d (the same watertight-rebuild library Bambu Studio uses internally)
into a small CLI + GUI + Dolphin right-click menu.
It's nothing groundbreaking — MeshLab could already do most of this manually,
and there are paid/web tools too. I just wanted a right-click "fix" like
Windows has, so I made one and figured it might save someone else the same
afternoon of digging through VCG filter docs.
Tested against Thingi10K samples (self-intersecting, non-manifold, multi-shell
real-world models) plus a bunch of adversarial/malformed inputs.
Feedback welcome, especially if you hit a mesh it can't handle — I'd like to know.
Hi,
im Pretty new to fusion. 10 years ago i worked along time with solidworks. I want to build an Prothesis for an dog but i struggle with "how do i get to the to the goal". i i have an .stl file of an dog. Now i want to create a Shell of the front left part of the dog which i can manipulate later. DO u have any tipps and tricks? i started with a lot netcuts but i guess there must be better ways to do it.
