Type of Submission
Poster
Keywords
3D modeling, 3D printing, fossils, minerals
Abstract
Advancements in technology associated with 3D imaging for both print and digital applications are transforming many aspects of geology. Museums, researchers, and educators are now using 3D models to depict and reproduce fossils, minerals, and crystals for study, thereby reducing the risk of damage to valuable original specimens. This project examined which of the two processes available to Cedarville University geology program produces the best quality digital image and, subsequently, the best 3D printed object of a macroscopic-sized specimen. The first method utilizes the camera on a smartphone to take overlapping photos of the entire specimen (fossil or mineral) – top, bottom, and sides. Then, using free software called AutoDesk Remake the images are processed into a digital 3D model. The digital model is then sent to a LulzBot Mini 3D printer for printing. The second method makes use of a NextEngine 3D scanner rather than a camera. The specimen is placed on a rotating pedestal and laser scanners sweep across the specimen as cameras look at how much distortion is created. The scanner data is imported into ScanStudio HD software and a point cloud is created. From the point cloud a 3D model is created for viewing on the computer or for 3D printing. For this study the quality of the digital images and printed reproductions that were derived from the two methods was compared. In the final analysis of the various 3D models (printed and digital) it was determined that the 3D scanning process produced the better quality facsimiles.
Campus Venue
Stevens Student Center
Location
Cedarville, OH
Start Date
4-12-2017 11:00 AM
End Date
4-12-2017 2:00 PM
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Genuine or Reproduction: A Comparision of 3D Imaging Techniques
Cedarville, OH
Advancements in technology associated with 3D imaging for both print and digital applications are transforming many aspects of geology. Museums, researchers, and educators are now using 3D models to depict and reproduce fossils, minerals, and crystals for study, thereby reducing the risk of damage to valuable original specimens. This project examined which of the two processes available to Cedarville University geology program produces the best quality digital image and, subsequently, the best 3D printed object of a macroscopic-sized specimen. The first method utilizes the camera on a smartphone to take overlapping photos of the entire specimen (fossil or mineral) – top, bottom, and sides. Then, using free software called AutoDesk Remake the images are processed into a digital 3D model. The digital model is then sent to a LulzBot Mini 3D printer for printing. The second method makes use of a NextEngine 3D scanner rather than a camera. The specimen is placed on a rotating pedestal and laser scanners sweep across the specimen as cameras look at how much distortion is created. The scanner data is imported into ScanStudio HD software and a point cloud is created. From the point cloud a 3D model is created for viewing on the computer or for 3D printing. For this study the quality of the digital images and printed reproductions that were derived from the two methods was compared. In the final analysis of the various 3D models (printed and digital) it was determined that the 3D scanning process produced the better quality facsimiles.
