Volume XLII-2
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-2, 487-494, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-487-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-2, 487-494, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-487-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  30 May 2018

30 May 2018

COMPARATIVE GEOMETRICAL ACCURACY INVESTIGATIONS OF HAND-HELD 3D SCANNING SYSTEMS – AN UPDATE

T. P. Kersten1, M. Lindstaedt1, and D. Starosta2 T. P. Kersten et al.
  • 1HafenCity University Hamburg, Photogrammetry & Laser Scanning Lab, Überseeallee 16, D-20457 Hamburg, Germany
  • 2Hanack und Partner Vermessung, Alsterkrugchaussee 378, D-22335 Hamburg, Germany

Keywords: 3D, mesh, point cloud, reference, structured light systems, VDI/VDE 2634

Abstract. Hand-held 3D scanning systems are increasingly available on the market from several system manufacturers. These systems are deployed for 3D recording of objects with different size in diverse applications, such as industrial reverse engineering, and documentation of museum exhibits etc. Typical measurement distances range from 0.5 m to 4.5 m. Although they are often easy-to-use, the geometric performance of these systems, especially the precision and accuracy, are not well known to many users. First geometrical investigations of a variety of diverse hand-held 3D scanning systems were already carried out by the Photogrammetry & Laser Scanning Lab of the HafenCity University Hamburg (HCU Hamburg) in cooperation with two other universities in 2016. To obtain more information about the accuracy behaviour of the latest generation of hand-held 3D scanning systems, HCU Hamburg conducted further comparative geometrical investigations using structured light systems with speckle pattern (Artec Spider, Mantis Vision PocketScan 3D, Mantis Vision F5-SR, Mantis Vision F5-B, and Mantis Vision F6), and photogrammetric systems (Creaform HandySCAN 700 and Shining FreeScan X7). In the framework of these comparative investigations geometrically stable reference bodies were used. The appropriate reference data was acquired by measurements with two structured light projection systems (AICON smartSCAN and GOM ATOS I 2M). The comprehensive test results of the different test scenarios are presented and critically discussed in this contribution.