Machsupport Forum

Mach Discussion => Video P*r*o*b*i*n*g => Topic started by: ART on November 08, 2007, 09:18:31 PM

Title: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 08, 2007, 09:18:31 PM
Hi Guys:

  Here are some photo's , though grainy, of the "scanner" I made for this. Its a piece of wood with a laser pointer pressed in a drilled hole.
The angle of the hole was arbitray, ( my vise was at that angle..) , the plugin calibrates the angle and such with the 2" wooden block in one
of the photos. The laser takes 5 volts, taken from the red and balck wires in the webcam cable. The block of wood is then clamped with a
spring clamp to the upper or lower spindle trunion ring mounts depending on the FOV I want to shoot on.. ( I find higher makes the line sharper
and gives better results.. )  . As you can see, its a very expensive, very sensitive, very complex uint, likely as high as 50 bucks on the open market..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 08, 2007, 09:21:26 PM
oops , forgot the photos..
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 08, 2007, 09:23:55 PM
and finally, some grainy closeups..

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Bodini on November 08, 2007, 10:16:27 PM
Webcam: $30
Laser pointer: $6
Spring clamp: $3

Arts bare feet:  Priceless.

 :) :) :) :) ;) :D

-Nick
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Bodini on November 08, 2007, 10:23:01 PM
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the video probe is flippin' sweet.  I REALLY have a use for that (even in a not-perfect state).

-Nick
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 08, 2007, 11:01:16 PM
The 60's were good to me, I hate socks.. :)

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: aolshove on November 08, 2007, 11:38:14 PM
Awesome job Art!  I'll sign up for the beta test when you're ready.  I even have a line painter/camera rig ready to go from when I was working on building a line scanner a couple of years ago.  Your hand scan looks way better than anything I ended up with. 

One trick I figured out to give clean points is to use a filter over the lens of the camera to filter out all colors but 650nm.  The other trick was to dim the lights during the scan.  Your scans look great though so you're probably beyond these problems.  How'd you deal with the distortion of the lens?  Did you use OpenCV or roll your own vision library?
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 09, 2007, 09:30:06 AM
Hi:

  Now thats a good iead, the filter.. what did you use for the filter material, I hadnt thought of that one..
I use the same video ocx as the video plugin, the rest is home rolled in terms of analysis, It calibrates to a 2" block
to compute the laser plane, then I switch all the calcs to a angle vs plane intersection code that computes everything based on ray tracing.
Im still working on the variosu algorithms to centroid the laer better to remove speckle and such.. Im hopeing to have it search
for the best algorithm for a persons setup with reliable pixel detection as the arbiter.
   Ill release it when I figure its usefull , its lmost usefull now in many ways, but the sparckle and centropiding needs to be better
yet. A better camera woudl probably help, but Im staying with cheap stuff with the thought that if my cheap setup works good
then a good setup will be awesome..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: aolshove on November 09, 2007, 08:37:12 PM
For the filter I used photographic color filters. 

I got a Roscolux filter sample swatchbook  http://www.rosco.com/us/filters/roscolux.asp and experimented with various RGB combinations until I settled upon #19 (fire), #93 (blue-green), and #84 (zephyr-blue).

Got the swatchbook from Cascade Sound & Stage.  Looks like you can get a sampler directly from Rosco at http://www.rosco.com/us/filters/swatchBookRequest.asp?type=roscolux

You can also buy them for a couple bucks from various photographic supply web sites.  Got mine at B&H Photo for a penny. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45189-REG/Rosco_8807_Roscolux_Swatchbook.html



Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Hllrsr on November 11, 2007, 08:00:25 PM
Art,
Any probable ETA on this oh so sweet addon?
I'm currently using Emc2 as (closed loop) control software, with a trial version of Mach on a second machine for the digitizing, but for this little gem I'd even be willing to dump the Emc!

Iain
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 11, 2007, 08:35:43 PM
Hi :
 
Cant promise, but Ill likely have a test of somethign out in a week or two.. Im still playing with statistics..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Hllrsr on November 11, 2007, 08:57:21 PM
Looking forward to it, and since the touchless scanning is one of my biggest wishes for a CNC ( the David software doesn't count, too difficult to set up) looks like it's time to buy a full version of your wonderful little program!

ATB
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: peepaw on November 14, 2007, 03:09:43 AM
Very cool Art....

Do you have an idea of it's potential range. I have an application that would really benefit from a function like this, though I have a 2 to 4 foot distance to my subject. I suppose the graininess of the laser would start to become an issue.

The versatility of your software continues to amaze me.

buck
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on November 14, 2007, 06:53:32 PM
Buck:

 Should work to any distance, but small items will get lost , the closer you are the better , but too close and the laser line gets fuzzy, I use some
filtering to calcuate the center of even fuzzy laser lines, ( the red line shows center of line offset from the white raw data, but Im not sure of the total
spec of it, Ive only run a few hndred scans, overall, they keep getting better, still lots to do yet though.. complex stuff, Ill take a few days break from it now..wait to
see what others get for results..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: GAWnCA on December 14, 2007, 12:00:33 PM
Hi Art,

I like what you are doing, BUT (don't you just love that word, BUT?)  how about setting up the scanner so that it's not connect to a CNC machine, so the scanning can be done in another room or office and then transfered to the MACH machine?  Fully automated and scanning in a vertical plane rather than a horizontal.  A single axis or 2 axis (for rotation) would be great!  Also, what do you think about using 2 lasers at say 45* angles of each other to get more detail?

Just some thoughts I had.

Greg
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on December 14, 2007, 12:11:37 PM
Hi Greg:

 Id checkout the David scanner for that kind of thing. My interest was more on getting the CNC to do the scanning.. Meshing is the bitch, I now have meshes, but its not yet ready to release.. :) Soon I hope, I work on it every day and Im getting some amazing nice images, but it all takes too much tweaking for my like..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: GAWnCA on December 14, 2007, 12:18:57 PM
Art,

I was just thinking about how to keep it all away from the dirt and dust that might be around the CNC machine.  I've looked at David and if your plug-in will do the same thing, no need to do the David thing.  What are you using for the mesh CAM software?

Greg

p.s.  As always, thanks for your speedy reply.  You're the MAN!!!
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on December 14, 2007, 01:10:32 PM
Greg:

 For meshing, Im using MachCloud, which now does meshing, and stl file saving, just trying to make it work reliably now..

Art
:)
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: GAWnCA on December 16, 2007, 12:09:29 PM
Greg:

 For meshing, Im using MachCloud, which now does meshing, and stl file saving, just trying to make it work reliably now..

Art
:)

Now, is that what you are working on for scanning and plugs into MACH?

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on December 16, 2007, 12:17:58 PM
Hi:
  No, the scanner is a plugin, MachCloud will be a free utility to process point clouds to stl files so you can run them in VCarve or Meshcam to generate toolpaths from scanned points. The point scanner plugin is out already, but my next job is to celan that up some..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: GAWnCA on December 16, 2007, 12:37:12 PM
Art,

That is just too cool.  I already have all the VCarve software.  So it should be a snap when I figure it all out.  :D
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: irk3 on April 07, 2008, 09:25:32 AM
Hi Art, I  recently purchaces same machine as yours (SHG0609) , going to make a video scanner, got a line laser and A4Tech cam today, hope to share results with you, please keep us updated wit your results, I like your KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) way of doing things.
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: irk3 on April 07, 2008, 09:27:04 AM
Hi Art, I  recently purchaces same machine as yours (SHG0609) , going to make a video scanner, got a line laser and A4Tech cam today, hope to share results with you, please keep us updated wit your results, I like your KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) way of doing things.
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: K3HTK on April 10, 2008, 01:45:30 PM
Hello! I have been trying to accomplish the same setup but have not had much success....

I have a laser line generator and a Creative Web Cam and seem to get the Square Wave image looking like Art's nd calibrate on a 1 inch block of wood but when I do a scan, I am not seeing anything in the MachCloud program. Sometimes I see various dots (points) but nothing that resembles an image of anything recognizable anyway.... Ha Ha!

What webcam and laser is Art using for this? Maybe I should get exactly what he has and then try just to be sure..... Any ideas? I can post pics of my setup if that would help.

Thanks!

Ed

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on April 10, 2008, 01:57:41 PM
Hi:
 Are you scanning in the Y dimension only? Send me a point cloud if you like , Ill see if I can see what the trouble may be..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: K3HTK on April 10, 2008, 02:11:54 PM
Yeah, I am scanning the Y axis only... I will try again this evening and send you my point cloud... Thanks Art! I appreciate it.... :)

-Ed-
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 10, 2008, 09:40:58 PM
Hey All,

I too have been spending some time of late trying to figure out the whole Webcam Laser Video probing process.  I must admit that with no prior digitizing/probing experience combined with the relative infancy state that the Plug in and viewer are in it has been most challenging.

I don’t mean to “Hijack” this thread but since it seems it is a popular ‘view’ it seemed the appropriate place to do it. 

Got my laser (the cheapie $4.50 one that was recommended on the other thread).  It says it’s a 3.2VDC but, my Power supply is only 3VDC.  All seems OK- I have a red line so I guess it’s OKee Dokee.  If not could someone let me know?

The first camera I tried was a nice Logitech.  I think it cost me around $60.  With the default settings that the fancy schmancy driver software uses (i.e. auto exposure/ auto white balance, color correction, anti flicker, etc) I could not get a square wave to save my life.  After monkey-ing around with manual settings for about an hour I finally managed to get something that resembled a square wave. 

Scans with this Logitech camera didn’t yield any encouraging results.  Until, I changed the “Ignore less than parameter” to -100 (as Art had suggested to ‘aolshove’ in the alpha release of point generator thread).  While I was able to FINALLY get data into the computer and view it in Mach Cloud-(WHOOOOO HOOOOO!!!))  ;D, I had points on the Zero plane.  I agree with Art, those points are annoying.

So, I got another myself another Webcam-  Cheap P.O.S. $15 version (I think they had it at Big Lots-LOL).  Without any fancy settings software, the camera worked great right out of the box.  Scans were the same with the lights on or off.  This was a HUGE step forward.  So, I would have to say that the type of camera and driver software that you use seems to play a large (if not huge) role in the acquisition of data. It would be cool if the Logitech (or any camera) settings utility actually had some psychedelic color/intensity/saturations effects filter knobs that would allow you to tweak up the laser/square wave gain but alas, this is but a dream (for now).

So, with the camera out of the way (for a moment), there are those mysterious  settings on the Plug-in.  Just what does all of that stuff do?  Cube size is obvious. My cube is 1.5” so I set it for 1.50.   But what is Cam FOV.  OK, I know it stands for Field of view but, expressed in what units? Inches/Degrees.  Is the field horizontal, vertical or diagonal?  I have tried messing around with it (FOV), to get it to change the height value to equal the distance from the camera to the TOP of the cube.  Is that right?  Or, is  it to the bottom of the cube otherwise known as the table surface/zero point?   Hmmmmm,  ??? which is it?

On the subject of alignment and such.  I was wondering where the best place for my Z axis/camera angle?  High Z hovering directly above my subject matter or Lower and angled  45 Deg downward.  Another Hmmmmm?  Have not yet been able to experiment with this yet as my current spring clamp/electrical tape camera set up doesn’t give a lot of pan/tilt flexibility in this area  ;).  I’m gonna work on that and get back to ya.  Perhaps others can offer some insight here?

I set my feed rate @ 75 (IPM).  Default comes up @ 500.  That seemed kind of high to me but then I though maybe that’s how Art had it set for his machine running in MM.  After a few scans I started playing with feed rate and it doesn’t seem to change things that much- either how fast the machine scans- nor the quality of the scans.  It does effect how fast the machine Re-Zeros itself after the scan is finished though.  Not really sure about the feed rate will help/hurt.  Does a slower feed rate yield better results (i.e. smoother scans) or just take more time?  Yet another Hmmmmm.  ???

I stepped the Y at .039 (Inches).  Default I think = 1 (again probably 1mm-but that’s on that ‘crazy’ other measurement system so I use 'our' systems convenient  ::) # .04”.  Starting out small I’ve been scanning a 4” to 10” area.  The scans usually take about 15-30 seconds to complete.  At first I scanned only in Y then I tried scanning in both Y AND X but when I open the clouds in MachCloud, I get a message that says, “Use left/right arrows to register the striped cloud, press enter when done”.  I press the arrow keys but nothing happens, the mouse doesn’t seem to do anything- so, what’s a guy to do?  I press ‘Enter’ (sometimes multiple times and more points keep appearing.  The cloud is there but I’m left wondering if I missed something or is that feature just not enabled yet? 

I have tried scanning a bunch of different things and had varied results.  Some things that I thought looked great during the scan, don’t generate a good point cloud at all.  Others that I thought wouldn’t scan well, actually produce some good results.  It’s kinda weird and I wish I could figure it all out  ???.

I played around with the “Ignore” setting a little but I don’t really understand what it is that I am ignoring.  Is this telling the computer if something is lower than this value then it won’t record it?  For example, if I had a 2” cube on my table and said Ignore 1.0 then would I get a scan of just the top 1” of my cube?  I’m not clear on this one- anyone have the answer on how this works?

Here are 3 scans that I did only in the Y axis.  Sorry it's nothing too exciting, I'll try to find some more interesting subject matter.   I would rate the scans “OK” but I think that they are no where near the resolution that Art was able to get on the scans of his hands. 

1. The trpzd woodblock was 1st.  Not too shabby but the points are all really close to each other almost forming a line.  When I try to mesh/surface the surface is wavy and smooth and flat like the original block.  Is this the scan or something you tweak in Rhino?

2. Since the Vacuum nozzle was black, I thought might not scan well.  I was happily surprised to bring up the point cloud.  It seems to lack Z depth, as if something got cutoff/pruned down there.  Maybe this is another setting/camera angle/height thing?  Any advice on this anyone?

3. Finally the wedge of foam.  After a few adjustments of the “Ignore Z” settings I was able to get it.  Again, this one seems like I have too many points lined up in rows and it gives a distorted wavy look to the cloud even though the subject is flat and smooth.

I suppose spending a little time using the touch probe method of digitizing would be enlightening and also provide some basis of speed/quality comparison.  The MACH3/laser webcam digitizing concept is so promising!  I hope that its development matures rapidly as I think MANY would benefit from integrating this process.

I feel I am close but it seems my lack of experience is keeping me from crossing that frontier into the land of clear scans.  Arrrg-I love this plugin! I hate this plugin! Maybe some of  the dudes who have some more experience, knowledge or even luck would chime it would help me to lose the “hate” part.   I have more questions and comments but I think this is a good place to stop for now. 

Thanks and Regards,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 10, 2008, 09:42:10 PM
Ooops,  only allowed 4 attachments per message.  Here are the last 2 pix.

Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on April 10, 2008, 10:20:58 PM
Hi:

 >> Im working in LazyTurn, and once I get toolpaths, Ill redo the data aquisition plugin for probing, needs work depending on camera I think, but heres some explanations.. ( Your photos dont look too bad, do they mesh alright if you select a ball mesh in MachCloud?

 The first camera I tried was a nice Logitech.  I think it cost me around $60.  With the default settings that the fancy schmancy driver software uses (i.e. auto exposure/ auto white balance, color correction, anti flicker, etc) I could not get a square wave to save my life.  After monkey-ing around with manual settings for about an hour I finally managed to get something that resembled a square wave.

 >>The square wave is seen becuase the Y of the line changes in the image, so if you turn off the lights in the room it can really help, flourecents give a infra red out as well, so they can mess up line discrimination. Just a suggestion..

Scans with this Logitech camera didn’t yield any encouraging results.  Until, I changed the “Ignore less than parameter” to -100 (as Art had suggested to ‘aolshove’ in the alpha release of point generator thread).  While I was able to FINALLY get data into the computer and view it in Mach Cloud-(WHOOOOO HOOOOO!!!))  , I had points on the Zero plane.  I agree with Art, those points are annoying.

>> Thats what ignore does, it ignore any Y less than the set amount. so play with that to get rid of the zero plane points..

So, I got another myself another Webcam-  Cheap P.O.S. $15 version (I think they had it at Big Lots-LOL).  Without any fancy settings software, the camera worked great right out of the box.  Scans were the same with the lights on or off.  This was a HUGE step forward.  So, I would have to say that the type of camera and driver software that you use seems to play a large (if not huge) role in the acquisition of data. It would be cool if the Logitech (or any camera) settings utility actually had some psychedelic color/intensity/saturations effects filter knobs that would allow you to tweak up the laser/square wave gain but alas, this is but a dream (for now).

>> Definitiely, my camera isnt great, but its not bad at doign organic 3d shapes like my hand..

So, with the camera out of the way (for a moment), there are those mysterious  settings on the Plug-in.  Just what does all of that stuff do?  Cube size is obvious. My cube is 1.5” so I set it for 1.50.   But what is Cam FOV.  OK, I know it stands for Field of view but, expressed in what units? Inches/Degrees.  Is the field horizontal, vertical or diagonal?  I have tried messing around with it (FOV), to get it to change the height value to equal the distance from the camera to the TOP of the cube.  Is that right?  Or, is  it to the bottom of the cube otherwise known as the table surface/zero point?   Hmmmmm,   which is it?

>>FOV is the degrees of the FOV in the X dimension, typically abotu 45 - 70 degrees depending on the camera.. The software tries to figure it out , but thats where work is needed, false readings are common in calibration. Keep calibration till the angle is about 50-70 degrees for a logitec. Yes, you can futz till the heght is rigth as well. I need to figure a more clever way to do all that.

On the subject of alignment and such.  I was wondering where the best place for my Z axis/camera angle?  High Z hovering directly above my subject matter or Lower and angled  45 Deg downward.  Another Hmmmmm?  Have not yet been able to experiment with this yet as my current spring clamp/electrical tape camera set up doesn’t give a lot of pan/tilt flexibility in this area  .  I’m gonna work on that and get back to ya.  Perhaps others can offer some insight here?

>>My Z is about 2-3" above the item, straigth down, laser about 45 degrees into the bottom 1/4 of the feild..

I set my feed rate @ 75 (IPM).  Default comes up @ 500.  That seemed kind of high to me but then I though maybe that’s how Art had it set for his machine running in MM.  After a few scans I started playing with feed rate and it doesn’t seem to change things that much- either how fast the machine scans- nor the quality of the scans.  It does effect how fast the machine Re-Zeros itself after the scan is finished though.  Not really sure about the feed rate will help/hurt.  Does a slower feed rate yield better results (i.e. smoother scans) or just take more time?  Yet another Hmmmmm. 

>> Feedrate wont matter much since its doing lots of small moves, never has time to get to full speed .. so ignore feedrate, I use metric, so 500 is default.

I stepped the Y at .039 (Inches).  Default I think = 1 (again probably 1mm-but that’s on that ‘crazy’ other measurement system so I use 'our' systems convenient   # .04”.  Starting out small I’ve been scanning a 4” to 10” area.  The scans usually take about 15-30 seconds to complete.  At first I scanned only in Y then I tried scanning in both Y AND X but when I open the clouds in MachCloud, I get a message that says, “Use left/right arrows to register the striped cloud, press enter when done”.  I press the arrow keys but nothing happens, the mouse doesn’t seem to do anything- so, what’s a guy to do?  I press ‘Enter’ (sometimes multiple times and more points keep appearing.  The cloud is there but I’m left wondering if I missed something or is that feature just not enabled yet? 

>> Yup, again metric, use about .05 for a stepover..  Just scan in Y for now, the X scan get striped, so MAchCloud uses a manual registration, again I need to clean that up..unless you know it, striping is not intuitive..

I have tried scanning a bunch of different things and had varied results.  Some things that I thought looked great during the scan, don’t generate a good point cloud at all.  Others that I thought wouldn’t scan well, actually produce some good results.  It’s kinda weird and I wish I could figure it all out  .

>> It IS hit and miss somewhat , its all tuned to my camera, so hard to duplicate what I do.. I use a logictec fusion.

I played around with the “Ignore” setting a little but I don’t really understand what it is that I am ignoring.  Is this telling the computer if something is lower than this value then it won’t record it?  For example, if I had a 2” cube on my table and said Ignore 1.0 then would I get a scan of just the top 1” of my cube?  I’m not clear on this one- anyone have the answer on how this works?

>>Zero Pkane is the ignore, it means ignore any lines less than.. ********* mm's.. ( again, your shoudl be set to inches equivalent..)

Here are 3 scans that I did only in the Y axis.  Sorry it's nothing too exciting, I'll try to find some more interesting subject matter.   I would rate the scans “OK” but I think that they are no where near the resolution that Art was able to get on the scans of his hands. 

>>Not bad really, getting close, they shouild mesh..

1. The trpzd woodblock was 1st.  Not too shabby but the points are all really close to each other almost forming a line.  When I try to mesh/surface the surface is wavy and smooth and flat like the original block.  Is this the scan or something you tweak in Rhino?

>> Use Ball mesh with a ball about 5mm or inch equivalent..

2. Since the Vacuum nozzle was black, I thought might not scan well.  I was happily surprised to bring up the point cloud.  It seems to lack Z depth, as if something got cutoff/pruned down there.  Maybe this is another setting/camera angle/height thing?  Any advice on this anyone?

>> Thats not too bad, but its only seeing from on top, so side data is missing, its what the X scan is supposed to fill in..

 I suppose spending a little time using the touch probe method of digitizing would be enlightening and also provide some basis of speed/quality comparison.  The MACH3/laser webcam digitizing concept is so promising!  I hope that its development matures rapidly as I think MANY would benefit from integrating this process.

>>Wont be real quick , its all R&D, but Ill see what I can do. :)

I feel I am close but it seems my lack of experience is keeping me from crossing that frontier into the land of clear scans.  Arrrg-I love this plugin! I hate this plugin! Maybe some of  the dudes who have some more experience, knowledge or even luck would chime it would help me to lose the “hate” part.   I have more questions and comments but I think this is a good place to stop for now. 

>>Me too, I hate it and love it. Hopefully, it will show more promise in future..

Thanks
Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 11, 2008, 12:46:52 AM
Hey Art,

Thanks for the fast reply!  Things make more sense now. I am re-inspired to keep tinkering around to see if I can perfect (uh well... refine) my scans.  I am going to try re-aligning my camera/laser according to what you are doing and then rescan and see what happens.

I also need to mess around with the features on Mach Cloud- but that's for another thread  ;)

Thanks again and Good Luck and Godspeed with all of that Lazy Turn toolpath stuff.  I'm not really that much of a lathe man myself- it makes me dizzy to watch all of that spinning around action  ;D.

Regards,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: K3HTK on April 11, 2008, 10:07:35 AM
Okay something is goofing up for my post, so here goes again.... ID10T error on my behalf maybe? Ha!

Art,

Here are the files you wanted..... The pointcloud file is supposed to be a roll of masking tape. The others are my setup and a screen shot of the video probe screen. Maybe my camera is too high at 8" above the table? Let me know if you think I should move it closer to the 2 - 3" range.... Thanks again!

-Ed-

Also the cube is 26 mm wide that I have on the table..... FYI
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 11, 2008, 10:32:48 AM
Hey Ed,

I looked at your cloud file using a simple text editor as well as in Mach Cloud.  Your right not much there.  T

I am confused about your setting in the scan y box.  It appears that you are using Metric parameters.  If so, a 3mm scan area is too small for a roll of masking tape.  It needs to be set to a little more than the length of travel your gantry must go so the laser/camera can pass entirely over your scan subject matter.  When you do your scan does the laser move step by step entirely across the roll of tape?  If not, try a Scan Y value of something like 300 (mm) and see what you get.

The other thing I noticed is that the Z data in your cloud file stays pretty steady at 1.000- THAT is a problem but, it might be related to your lack of travel issue previously mentioned.  Before we go on to troubleshoot other issues- verify your scan parameters and get back with us!

HTH,
Sid

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 11, 2008, 10:47:47 PM
Slowly getting the hang of things....

Moved the location of the lasr- raised it up higher to get a more defined line.  Changed position of the camera.  Turned off the lights.  Worked with the Ignore setting and things arte starting to come together.

To try and bring things closer to what Art was doing, I tried doing my hand.  It worked pretty well!  One thing I figured out is that once you view the cloud in Mach Cloud, in order to get a good mesh, the 'DECIMINATE" (I just love that word) feature is really helpful.  I found that doing it repeatedly helps to reduce the 'clutter' so to speak.

I have also noticed that Mach Cloud kinda goes funky on me while doing the Ball Pivot mesh thing.  About 40% of the meshes I tried nothing happened.  Or the mesh turned out weird.  I shut down Mcloud and re-launched and sometimes meshes worked again, sometimes they didn't.  So, I just kept shutting it down and relaunching and eventually it works again.

It's kind of irritating because it's not consistent, but on the other hand, it makes me feel like Thomas Edison searching for Tungsten- knowing that when I find it the whole friggin' world is gonna light up!  I guess what I am trying to say is that if things aren't working right, I'm not freaking out.  There is a little 'voodoo' element to all of this right now. But I think I have arrived at the point that I can duplicate results- WHEW!

I will say that after a few bad scans of my hand it took a lot of self control to restrain myself from curling up the 2 fingers on either side of the middle one  :o   

This process really is pretty darn cool!

Regards,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on April 12, 2008, 09:09:06 AM
Hi:

 Glad to hear your starting to get results. It really is a bit of an Art more than a science as yet.
Just a note on MachCloud, the meshing is really pretty touchy about point cloud density, finding tangental
vectors for point cloud points is a difficult statistical issue, but I dont think restarting the program is whats making it
work for you, Ive done hundreds of meshes, and I find its the decimation of the cloud thats really the trigger as
well as the ball size used. Ball meshing is basically placing a ball of a set diamter on the point cloud at an arbitray spot, then
rolling it over the point cloud and creating mesh lines whnever the ball hits two other points. Its analogous to rolling a ball
bearing over the surface with some conditions as to the angle of the lines created in reference to other mesh lines in the local
area. Its very complex really though it sounds easy, so point cloud conditions are important.
  Id simply remesh with variosu parameters, and decimate when necessary, decimation tries to erase points that are
non-respresntative of the local areas they reside in as well as averaging the tangental vectors of the neighbours. So its a bit
of an Art more than a science.

  Good luck,
Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 13, 2008, 04:43:35 PM
Well,  most of that makes sense.  Some of that Tangental Vector stuff is a little over my head though but, I think I get the Jist of what you are saying- Thank You!

I think that there is some kind of an issue with my machine being set in inches and you doing your stuff in Metric.  Somehow the conversions don't seem right sometimes.  I'm thinking that emulating what you have done has been working for me thus far so I'm about ready to abandon the Inch system and retune my system for metric units and see if that changes anything.

Having had some real breakthroughs in the past couple of days, I want to try and do some bigger things.  That would involve using the X Scan.  Any tips or is there anything I should  about tryijng this?  I know McCloud (wasn't that a 70's TV show?) asks for the left/right arrow thing to register the striping- any tricks to making that work or should I just 'Tinker'?

Thanks a ton for you assistance and input Art- it really has helped me.  I hope I can help others the same way!  Well, except for all of that software coding stuff  ;)

Regards,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on April 13, 2008, 07:30:18 PM
Sid:

  When doing striping, Set the X scan to the total amount of stepover, and the X step to somethign liek 200mm's.
It will then scan in the Y, come back, move over 200 and scan the Y again, and repeat till the entire X range is used.
When loading into MachCloud, ( The TV show was McCloud. :) ) , when it says to use arrows, the second stripe shoudl appear,
at that point you arrow back and forth to try to match up the points as best you can, then hit enter. This will repeat for all Stripes. Inaccuracies will make it very hard to match things up. Results will vary widely. :)

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: K3HTK on April 13, 2008, 11:43:35 PM
Hey Sid,

I am sorry... I am using inches here so I wasn't sure if put inches or mm in for values. I tried calibrating with inches and mm for my cube. Basically my cube is 1 inch so I had 26 mm in for calibration. Y was setup for 3 inches and it is moving 3 inches so sorry for the confusion as I was confused on what the heck I should use for this add-on. Ha! Mach 3 is setup for inches though.

As far as the roll of tape and travel goes, I was scanning about half the roll. I can try scanning something else. Maybe a can or something.

I am not clear on the Z data issue? Can you help me out on understanding why the Z data being steady around 1.000 is bad? I am not sure I understand the issue..... I am a noob so I apologize.... 

Thanks Sid!

-Ed-
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 14, 2008, 12:28:25 AM
Hey Ed,

No Apologies necessary.  I think we are all learning here. 

OK, so the way I understand it- if your machine's native units is set up in inches, then all of the numbers you input should be in inches.  Art's machine is set up in Metric which is why in all of his examples you see mm.  That being said, if your machine is in inches, use inches to calibrate your cube (i.e if your cube is 1 inch, enter 1.00), specify your Y & X Scan distance and the step in inches and if necessary your Ignore Z parameter in inches.

I tried a roll of tape in the beginning as well and didn't get results at first.  Now, I think it was due to other issues but, nevertheless I decided to start with something really simple- my trapazoid wood block.  It worked and now that's going to be my 'lucky block'  ;)

As far as the Z issue is concerned, try and think about what the scanner is doing as the exact opposite of what happens when you cut a part using your machine.  When you cut a part, the computer is reading the G-Code and generating/dispersing commands telling your motors where to go.  The scanning process is just the opposite.  When you scan the computer is COLLECTING axis information via the camera. When the scan takes place the computer is recording data. It records its position in the X, Y but what we are really looking for here is what is happening in the Z.

The Y and/or X positions are specific and predictable (because we told the computer where to move them and how far).  But the Z is where the magic is.  As the laser passes over the object you are scanning the camera sees this object as being higher (i.e. away from the table in an upward direction).  This is the Z value that makes the scan work. 

Example...  If you place you 1 " cube and scanned that whenever the laser is shining on the top of the cube, the computer should register 1.0.  If you told you machine to scan a 1.5" area in the Y axis and a .25" step the point cloud file should look something llike this:
 X        Y      Z
0000  0000  0000  (no cube yet 
0000  0025  1000  (start of cube
0000  0050  1000  (more cube
0000  0075  1000  (more cube
0000  1000  1000  (end of cube
0000  1250  0000  (no more cube
0000  1500  0000  (no more cube


When you at a point cloud file using notepad or wordpad.  You see 3 sets of numbers seperated by a space.  These are you X, Y & Z coordinates.  Theoretically you could add the X, Y & Z before each respective vallue and throw a G1 command at the beginning of the line, you would have a cut/toolpath file.  Of course you would have thousands of points to cut and I think it wouldn't be something that we are all use to in terms of smoothness and speed.

When I looked at your point cloud file and saw that the last set of numbers on every line where all aproximately 0, it showed that you had a scan of a flat piece of something. Try recalibrating your cube using the 1.00 inch value and then rescaning.  I think your getting pretty close to getting some clouds.

I hope that all makes sense- it's hard to explain but you will get the hang of it.

Good Luck,
Sid

 
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Chip on April 14, 2008, 01:22:53 AM
Hi, Sid

Looks like your doing pretty good with this, Hears the pic of Ports Pins, Mill Options for X,Y,Z, Coordinates letters addition.

Not sure MachCloud will load them though.

Thanks, Chip
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 14, 2008, 02:06:52 AM
Thanks Chip!  I remember that you told me about that before and I tried it but it didn't work for me.  I think that check box will cause one of the other probe based digitizing plugin/wizard to add the letters when it writes the file.  I'm not a 100% sure on this though.  I am awaiting a touch probe and will check out this feature when it arrives. 

I am pretty excited about my progress since we spoke last week.  Thanks again for your help & advice.

Regards,
Sid
Title: Today's report...
Post by: sshneider on April 15, 2008, 12:10:59 AM
Hey all,

Didn't have a lot of time today to play but I didn try a couple of different camera positions and laser angles.  So far, I seem to get better results being lower/close to my subject with the camera and the laser raised slightly 4"  above the camera.

Not much else to report on this front but I'm gonna jump over to the MACH CLOUD thread as I have questions that should probably be asked over there to keep things straight!

Sid


Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: mhasting2004 on April 16, 2008, 07:38:20 AM
Quick question so I can understand a bit clearer.

From what I can make out from the picks Art's setup (Using Rainea's convention of Y being across the gantry and X being along the table) has the laser in the XZ plane (with tilt) and Sid has it in the YZ. Also looking at the data it appears that both of your field of views is wide enough to see your whole hand so you are scanning it in one pass. Am I right so far? Art is still working on "tileing" to do wider subjects with successive passes or strips which are merged later into one mesh.


The setup I am invisaging will have a much tighter FOV to increase the measurable Z resolution. This will mean that I will have to tile to even scan my hand.

I am curious what resolution in Z you are getting with your current setups. Ie scan a smooth vertical wedge and  figure out how many steps it is interpolating in the scan.

I posted in another thread that I think the ideal resolution would be from 1:1 to 2:1 the cutting resolution of the machine. Does that sound right? If it does then on a camera with 700 odd pixels in the horizontal (the security b/w cam I'm testing) the max FOV would be something around 35mm to 70mm  for a machine that can cut to 0.1mm. This would obviously get better if you had say a 6Mega pixel camera with 3000 pixels in the horizontal. What size cameras are you guys using?

Thanks

Mark
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 16, 2008, 10:02:33 AM
Quick question so I can understand a bit clearer.

From what I can make out from the picks Art's setup (Using Rainea's convention of Y being across the gantry and X being along the table) has the laser in the XZ plane (with tilt) and Sid has it in the YZ. Also looking at the data it appears that both of your field of views is wide enough to see your whole hand so you are scanning it in one pass. Am I right so far? Art is still working on "tileing" to do wider subjects with successive passes or strips which are merged later into one mesh.

It's kinda early and I need more cofee but check out the drawing below to get a better idea of my setup.  I thought that I did it the same as Art?  Maybe not?? ???  Yes, FOV is wide enough to see my whole hand.  "Tileing does work", it's just kinda funky- check out the 32" wrench I scanned yesterday- it's posted on the Mach Cloud Thread



I am curious what resolution in Z you are getting with your current setups. Ie scan a smooth vertical wedge and  figure out how many steps it is interpolating in the scan.

Not a clue about my resolution.  What do you mean 'scan a smooth vertical wedge'-   I guess I could try to scan something to figure it out but there are a lot of variables that you need to provide (what size wedge- a drawing would be helpful, how is this wedge oriented on the table, what do you want the step to be)?

I posted in another thread that I think the ideal resolution would be from 1:1 to 2:1 the cutting resolution of the machine. Does that sound right? If it does then on a camera with 700 odd pixels in the horizontal (the security b/w cam I'm testing) the max FOV would be something around 35mm to 70mm  for a machine that can cut to 0.1mm. This would obviously get better if you had say a 6Mega pixel camera with 3000 pixels in the horizontal. What size cameras are you guys using?

Maybe the coffee still needs to kick in but I really don't understand what you mean by 1:1 or 2:1.  Maybe you could explain.  I am using a cheapie webcam rightnow and I don't know the resolution but I will check.  I think is set at 640x480 and who knows the megapixels (actually it's probably not even MEGA).  Sorry I can't tell you more.

I can say that I have taken some measurements and my camera is approximately 10" above the Z0.  I am using a FOV setting of around 42 and getting some OK P.C. acquisitions.  But I am beginning to see what you guys are talking about in terms of position, alignment and distortion and I think that I may have to try some camera laser posititions to get less distorted scans

Thanks,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: mhasting2004 on April 16, 2008, 11:40:17 AM
Hi Sid

Yeah I could do with a coffee too :) It's 1am here.... only a couple of hours to go. First off this is just my theory and I could be way off the mark.

My idea for a wedge is that it would be used instead of the cube Art now prescribes. This is so one can calibrate the Z axis measurments which will be non linear due to the optics and alignment causing distortion. So imagine a ramp that starts at the bed (Z=0) and raises to whatever you can measure with your setup (say Z= -3") and is orinetated to be along the Y axis in your case. Each scan should produce a Z measurment for the part of the ramp being measured and if the wedge is smooth and linear the steps should be equal. At present the way i understand it Art calibrates on 2 measurements, the table and the top of his cube.
 What I mean about 1:1 or 1:2 is that if I want to reproduce something to the tolerance of my machining ability I really need to scan it at twice that resolution or at least a minimum of 1:1. so if you can machine a surface to say 0.1mm (0.004") then you need to be able to measure to at least that if you want a true replica of the original.

Thats where the number of pixels in your CCD comes in (when they talk about mega pixel they are refering to the H times the V resolution of the CCD... I think they sometimes fudge this number some what by talking about "effective" resolution)

If when you are looking at the image of the laser on your camera of the table (Z=0) I assume you have a line either on one side or the other of your screen (depending on orientation) and when you are reading the max Z value (Z= -? so make a wedge bigger than you can read to fine that point) it draws a line at the other side of the screen.

If you are using the maximum width of the CCD (ie laser line is shown vertical not horizontal in the video window as I've seen in all the pics) then you have the horizontal pixel count (you mention 640 x 480) as the devisor of you max Z reading. So if you can just read 2" in Z then your resolution would be 2/640 or  0.003".
If you are reading the laser the other way (the way I think it looks as if Art has it set0 the it would be 2/480 or 0.004"

All that is in a perfect world and assuming the laser is only one pixel wide and the CCD can resolve each pixel.

I think the ideal scan setup would be one that can measure to the resolution of the ability to cut and also to the max depth of cut so say 150mm (4") . I may be wrong but I would think the greatest use of this scanner would be to reproduce objects that one does not have cad files on. I think it could do a lot more too,  like auto tool height setting and non contact edge finding.

It's pretty cool stuff Art is turning out .. too cool in fact as its distracting me from getting on with building my machine.



Keep working out the bugs guys... It gives me time to finish my machine and have it all sorted by then :)

Cheers

Mark
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on April 16, 2008, 01:27:14 PM
Not a bad idea...  Ill giev some thought to a better way of calibrating..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 16, 2008, 03:14:03 PM
Mark,

I think I understand what you mean regarding calibtrating to a wedge instead of a cube but 'a picture is worth a thousand words".  Could you possible sketch up a picture and post it.  Then I will try and let you know  what I discover?

Thanks,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: TomHubin on April 16, 2008, 04:17:32 PM
A ramped or stepped surface may not be necessary if you choose to scan a volume (x, y, and z) to acquire data for a cube.

I think that using a sphere for a calibration target would be perfect but spheres are hard to do a least squares fit for. A ping pong ball has a standard diameter and a great surface for scattering light.

Tom Hubin
thubin@earthlink.net

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: TomHubin on April 16, 2008, 05:47:44 PM
Hello Art,

I would like to post some drawings and sketches. I use Vellum which has a VLM suffix. There is a free downloadable reader for VLM files but you don't list VLM files as attachable.

JPG is not one of my VLM conversion options.

I can convert VLM files to Windows BMP but this is also not listed as attachable.

Can you add VLM and BMP to your list of acceptable attachments?

Thanx,
Tom Hubin
thubin@earthlink.net
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 16, 2008, 06:40:14 PM
I Just sent a PM to Benny asking him if that was possible.  Are you runing Windows?  If so, there is a utility called 'Paint'  You can open .bmps and save as .jpgs  I know it's an extra step but it should work until we hear from Benny.

HTH,
Sid

P.S.  I look foward to the PIX!
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Benny on April 16, 2008, 06:57:24 PM
If I allow BMPs others will use them too. A Jpg is 10% the file size as a BMP for the same quality result. Its just too much server usage to allow BMPs
Use this free 1 Meg program to do your conversions. www.irfanview.com
The other option is to zip your work and upload the zip file. With zipping, you can essentially upload any file.
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: TomHubin on April 16, 2008, 08:16:19 PM
Hello,

Thanx for the file conversion suggestions.

I used the free Vellum viewer to convert from VLM to Windows BMP. Then used Windows Paint to convert the BMP to JPG and the BMP to GIF. Smallest file is GIF (13KB), then VLM (24KB), then JPG (62KB), and finally the very large BMP (565KB) with 256 colors. The default for BMP is 24 bit color and that produced a 1.5MB file.

I use black for the drawing and blue for the dimensions. JPG changed the blue to dark blue or purple. I am red/green colorblind so cannot be sure what the blue is actually changed to. My real objection is that the new color is so dark that it looks black to me unless I study it carefully. That defeats the purpose of using a different color for dimensions.

GIF is the smallest file and the best color match for my VLM file.

I am going to post the same drawing in GIF and JPG just to see how they come out.

VLM is a small line drawing file and there is a free viewer/converter. Is adding VLM to attachable the list an option?

Tom Hubin
thubin@earthlink.net
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: sshneider on April 16, 2008, 10:03:30 PM
Tom,

Your drawings look GREAT!  All those conversion steps paid off.  I'm R/G B-Blind as well and can see very clearly what you are talking about!  The .GIF has better color though!   It's not the way I have mine setup now so I think I will give your idea a try and see what happens.  Stay Tuned...

Thanks,
Sid
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: mhasting2004 on April 17, 2008, 03:38:17 AM
Here's a quick sketch to show what I was meaning about using a wedge. I used Tom's basic geometry.

I've been thinking i could probably make some resolution gratings on one of the plate imagers at work (bunch of parallel lines close together) which if you stuck it to a block setup to the laser plane angle you could use to get your focus just right. I'll definitely need one to do a Scheimflug mount test.

The wedge block is 30 degrees slope but that is irrelivant as any angle would do. What I would like to see in the scanned data would be straight lines equally spaced ... any variation on that could be attributed to optical distortion.


Cheers
Mark

PS the laser is red :)
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: mhasting2004 on April 17, 2008, 05:03:53 AM
Here's another one showing the 14 degree FOV
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Perfo on July 23, 2008, 02:11:48 PM
being a newbie I'm allowed to ask stupid questions (aren't I). What actually do you do with this function ? I can see you need a laser source and web cam  but can mach 3 do everything else ? do I plug the webcam in to the PC and set up a target area and tell Mach to go scanning ? I know I've over simplified but in general is this the idea? Could I also make a request to the moderators that there is a sticky post at the top of each section very very briefly explaining what that section is all about? Only a few lines but it will help the newbie tremendously in trying to find the right area to help solve their problems or read up on what they should be doing. In general though this forum is pretty splendid with a very broad knowledge base. Thanks to all who contribute especially to Art and the Team for still being as involved and as enthusiastic as ever.
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on July 23, 2008, 03:55:33 PM
Hi:

  Yes, basically you just plugin a webcam, but the laser source is also needed.. other than that Mach3 handles the rest. Pretty experimental though.. results vary by how dedicated an experimenter you are. Fun to play with though..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: Perfo on July 23, 2008, 04:27:50 PM
Thanks for the response. Playing with stuff is a natural pastime of mine so I'm sure I'll be playing with this as soon as I get my system up and running. An absorbent mat underneath the object may be good as well as the correct wavelength filter. The resultant of the scan goes in to some sort of matrix file. Can it then be turned back in to G code? Similarly with the hardware probing experiments which one is producing the best results?  The good thing for this facility is the price of small lasers and web cams have dropped fantastically over the last few years almost to the point where people give them away. A real good source of powerful lasers is the LED type used in disk players.  I’ve fiddled with them before and using the DVD burner types you can actually etch wood with it. Wearing all the necessary protective gear of course as they will burn out your retinas just as quick given a chance and are infra red so you can’t see them coming to get you.[/b][/u] They also come with a small lens already matched to the laser giving you a small but very accurate dot at a give focal length.
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on July 23, 2008, 04:34:54 PM
Hi:

  Yeah, gotta watch that infra red stuff.. :)

 You cant turn it into Gcode using Mach3, but MachCloud will create a 3d stl file for you, CAM programs liek Vectric will then create GCode..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ggagnon on July 23, 2008, 08:41:01 PM
Hi Art,
I have had no success with meshing with MachCloud except your prop.txt
Is there a limit on the object size? For example when meshing the penny submitted by TomHubin the cloud disappears and no meshing is done.
Could it be a matter of parameter selection in Ball Pivot window? If so what would be proper parameters?
Best Regards,

Gaston.
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on July 23, 2008, 09:47:37 PM
Hi:

  There has to be enough samples, and not too many.. The ball meshing takes one number , the diamter of the ball, what it does is rotate a ball of that diameter across the points, and when it rests on 3 points, it makes an edge of a triangle. Usually, 1 - 4 mm is the right setting for it, but you may have th edecimate the cloud some to get it to remove enough points to allow it to work.. no secret to it.. just a lot of playing around..

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ggagnon on July 23, 2008, 11:56:22 PM
Thank you Art,
I have found out what the problem is: I'm using "inch" system and MachCload expect "mm" coordinates.
I have brought my cloud file in Excel and multiplied each values by 25.4 and saved it.
When opened in MachCloud now it can meshed and my parts are recognizable  :)
Please when you have a minute to work on MachCloud a mm/inch option would be very usefull ;)
Great to see significant results.

Gaston
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ART on July 24, 2008, 12:05:10 AM
should work if you just enter .01 as the ball size.. and leave the data alone..
hard to say though.. I did design it in mm's.. Ill list a check for it in my schedule...

Art
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ggagnon on July 24, 2008, 01:34:54 PM
Thanks for the suggestion but unfortunately it does not work with a ball 0.01" diameter. The reason, I think is that a Tangential Analysis is performed before meshing and that operation excludes practically everything leaving only a few points, if any, to mesh.

As I see it, the options to use MachCloud for meshing right now are:
1) make a program to convert English units (inches) to International (mm)
2) scan with Mach3 in metric (executing G21 before the scan? I'm not to sure if that would work at the moment)
3) wait until ...

Also, could it be possible that MachCloud refuse to mesh if the object is too small (like Tom Hubin's penny cloud file for example)?

Gaston

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: TomHubin on July 26, 2008, 02:10:22 AM
Hello Gaston,

> I have found out what the problem is: I'm using "inch" system and MachCloud expect "mm" coordinates.
> I have brought my cloud file in Excel and multiplied each values by 25.4 and saved it.
> When opened in MachCloud now it can meshed and my parts are recognizable  :)

Can you post the cloud text file and a screenshot of the MachCloud meshed version?

Tom Hubin
thubin@earthlink.net

Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: ggagnon on July 26, 2008, 11:03:51 PM
Hi Tom,
Here are the files request and more  :)
decimated 3x.txt . The original produced by the plugin was too big for excel so load the file in MachCloud and saved a 3 times decimated version.
decimated 3x mm.txt. The converted file by excel.
decimated 3x mm.mesh the meshing parameters were the default one.
I have included a picture of the original object and one screenshots.

Gaston

 
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: jaru-eri on April 30, 2009, 09:17:50 AM
Will it be possible to use this function with a rotary axis instead of x or y and create a round 3d image of the scan? And can it be us with a video cam plugged to an av-input (composit) on a tv-card, or will that analog video make a poorer image than a digital web cam?
Title: Re: Photos of webcam scanner. ( no laughing.. :) )
Post by: TomHubin on June 14, 2009, 02:03:31 AM
Will it be possible to use this function with a rotary axis instead of x or y and create a round 3d image of the scan? And can it be us with a video cam plugged to an av-input (composit) on a tv-card, or will that analog video make a poorer image than a digital web cam?

Hello jaru-eri,

Sorry for taking so long to contribute a response.

I have not yet done anything with a rotary stage. I have been plenty busy just getting a new XYZ scanning plugin done. Open source posted at "http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,10959.0.html". No reason why rotary stages cannot be used but it will be a while before I tackle writingl plugin software for that.

As far as camera types, all I can say is try it. My plugin uses VFW (Video For Windows) functions that have been available since the Windows 95 days, I believe. If your camera drivers work with Windows they should work with the plugin.

Download the plugin and see if your camera produces a picture in the plugin. if so, then get a laser line module and build a probe. 

Tom Hubin
thubin@earthlink.net