Performance Evaluation of Low-Cost 3D Scanning Techniques

Bruno Castro; André Roberto Ortoncelli; Marlon Marcon

doi:10.22456/2175-2745.150932

Authors

Bruno Biz De Castro Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR)
André Roberto Ortoncelli Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9622-8525
Marlon Marcon Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3698-8570

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22456/2175-2745.150932

Keywords:

3D scanning, low-cost sensors, photogrammetry, structured light, comparative analysis

Abstract

This study evaluates the performance of three low-cost 3D scanning techniques: structured light sensors (using a Kinect and a CR-Scan Ferret) and photogrammetry, to capture 3D-printed physical models. The research compares the resulting 3D models with the original digital models to assess each technique's accuracy and the effectiveness of low-cost methods. The study’s workflow involved printing four 3D models, scanning them, and comparing the models using similarity metrics like Hausdorff distance, RMSE, and Chamfer distance. The CR-Scan Ferret generally outperformed the other methods, particularly in capturing detail. However, it sometimes produced gaps that required filling. Photogrammetry was a viable alternative, excelling at preserving object shapes without creating gaps. The Kinect, while accessible, consistently delivered the lowest performance, struggling to reproduce object details and forms accurately.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] BALADO, J. et al. A systematic literature review of low-cost 3d mapping solutions. Information Fusion, v. 114, p. 102656, 2025.

[2] FANG, K. et al. A quick and low-cost smartphone photogrammetry method for obtaining 3d particle size and shape. Engineering Geology, 2023.

[3] WINKELBACH, S.; MOLKENSTRUCK, S.; WAHL, F. M. Low-cost laser range scanner and fast surface registration approach. In: SPRINGER. Joint Pattern Recognition Symposium. [S.l.], 2006. p. 718–728.

[4] YANG, Y. et al. The development of a low-cost photogrammetry-based 3d hand scanner. HardwareX, v. 10, 2021.

[5] RAPHAEL, O. et al. Accuracy of digital dental models using the low-cost david laser scanner. Advances in clinical and experimental medicine: official organ Wroclaw Medical University, 2019.

[6] YU, F. et al. Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3d scanning techniques. Scientific Reports, v. 10, 2020.

[7] JANOS, D.; ORTYL, [L.]; KURAS, P. Low-cost 3d depth sensors for mobile applications and control systems – accuracy assessments using surveying techniques. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 2025.

[8] PAULUS, S. et al. Low-cost 3d systems: Suitable tools for plant phenotyping. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), v. 14, p. 3001–3018, 2014.

[9] POLO, M.; FELICÍSIMO, Á. Analysis of uncertainty and repeatability of a low-cost 3d laser scanner. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), v. 12, p. 9046–9054, 2012.

[10] KĘDZIERSKI, M. et al. Analysis of the possibilities of using low-cost scanning system in 3d modeling. In: ISPRS - Int. Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. [S.l.: s.n.], 2016. p. 261–267.

[11] STRAUB, J. et al. Characterization of a large, low-cost 3d scanner. Technologies, v. 3, p. 19–36, 2015.

[12] CURLESS, B.; LEVOY, M. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1996. (SIGGRAPH ’96), p. 303–312.

[13] CIGNONI, P. et al. MeshLab: An Open-source Mesh Processing Tool. In: Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference. [S.l.: s.n.], 2008.

[14] CREALITY. CR-Scan Ferret 3D Scanner. 2023. Website: https://www.creality.com/products/cr-scan-ferret-3d-scanner.

[15] IZADI, S. et al. KinectFusion: real-time 3d reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011. (UIST ’11), p. 559–568.

[16] SCHENK, T. Introduction to photogrammetry. The Ohio State University, Columbus, v. 106, n. 1, p. 1, 2005.

[17] GRIWODZ, C. et al. AliceVision Meshroom: An open-source 3D reconstruction pipeline. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference - MMSys ’21. [S.l.]: ACM Press, 2021.

[18] ZHOU, Q.-Y.; PARK, J.; KOLTUN, V. Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing. arXiv:1801.09847, 2018.

[19] HUTTENLOCHER, D.; KLANDERMAN, G.; RUCKLIDGE, W. Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v. 15, n. 9, p. 850–863, 1993.