I already ordered a POP 4, and today I randomly saw a video about the Pika. I had kind of ruled out portable 3D scanners before, because they seemed way too expensive for something I’d only use maybe a couple of times a year. That’s why I went with the POP 4 and figured I’d just bring the object to my PC when I want to scan it.

But the Pika seems much closer to what I actually want, since I want to work on car parts and usually can’t bring a laptop or PC to the car. My main concern is what to expect regarding accuracy and software for that kind of use.

So keeping the portablity out of the equation, does anyone have any thoughts on whether it’s on par with the POP4 accuracy and software wise? (Given the claimed accuarcy and experience with other creality scanner)

Thanks!

So ive Had this Thing for a few weeks thinking hey its a Budget Tool to get the Job done IT doesnt Need to BE detailed or anything but i cant even get this Thing to Turn on properly. It keeps telling me that im outside of the previously Scanned area even tho ive never Scanned anything before.

Does anyone have a fix for this

Hi everyone,

We are developing PPF Engine, a software for turning 3D vehicle scans into editable 2D PPF patterns. We’ve been getting some promising flattening results, but we want to test the workflow against real production experience rather than relying only on our own examples and assumptions.

I’d be interested to hear how people here currently create or modify patterns:

• Which scanning and pattern-making software do you use?
• How do you go from the raw scan to a plotter-ready file?
• Which parts of the process require the most manual work?
• What kinds of panels cause the most trouble?
• How do you handle compound curves, stretch, fingers and wrapped edges?
• What do existing tools do well, and where do they let you down?

I’m especially interested in understanding the difference between the first flattened result and the pattern that actually works well during installation.

If anyone is open to sharing a real example, I’d love to study a raw panel scan alongside its flattened or manually corrected pattern. It would also be useful to know what needed changing and how the first version behaved on the vehicle. Anything shared could remain private and would only be used with permission.

In return, I can test the scan with what we are building and share the results with you. If the example ends up helping shape the software, I’d also be happy to give you access to it once it is ready.

I’m not suggesting that we’ve completely solved scan-to-pattern flattening. However, the results so far are encouraging, and the workflow is beginning to work well enough that testing it against difficult, real-world panels now feels like the most important next step.

Even if you cannot share any files, I’d really appreciate hearing about your current workflow and its biggest frustrations.

Hi everyone,

I’m new to 3D scanning. I recently scanned a small plastic mechanical piece using the Shining 3D Einstar 2 to 3D print a replacement.

I scanned the object from 3 different angles, aligned the scans, generated the mesh, and used auto/non-manifold repair tools to close some holes. However, the result has major issues and isn't ready to print:

• Bumpy / Noisy Surfaces: Flat areas came out wavy and uneven.
• Lost Detail & Edges: Sharp 90-degree corners look melted and rounded.
• Deformed / Closed Holes: Small screw holes and internal cavities either got filled automatically or became completely distorted.

I originally thought a 3D scanner would output a ready-to-print STL file straight away, but I guess that's not how things work?

I have two main questions:

1. Is this quality normal for the Einstar 2 on small objects like this? Are there specific scanning modes, settings, or spray techniques I should use to get cleaner raw scans?
2. What do I need to do after scanning to fix this? What are the standard workflows and software used to make a raw mesh like this printable, smooth out surfaces, and repair holes properly? Do I really have to do all of this?

Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated!

I'm looking to buy my first serious 3D scanner and want to make sure I'm not missing anything before spending around $2,000.

I will mainly use it to reverse engineer mechanical parts and reconstruct them in CAD. Some parts have narrow blade channels, deep recesses, and other areas that are difficult to reach from a good scanning angle. Impellers and pump casings are probably the best examples. I pay attention to Revopoint MetroY Pro, that one's actually in budget. 3DeVOK MT Gen2 and EinScan Rigil both went over budget

My biggest concern is data loss in tight or recessed areas. The scans I've seen show that most of the exterior looks fine, but the deeper sections between the blades are either missing or require a lot of additional passes and mesh cleanup. I like the single line mode of MT Gen2. I've seen people use this on impellers and it seems to capture more blade passages than the other modes. I'm not sure how much of that depends on the scanner itself and how much depends on scanning technique, spraying, mark placement, and experience.

Has anyone used the MetroY Pro on parts like this? I keep thinking about the MT Gen2 because of the single-line mode, but I don't know how much difference it really makes.

Hello,
I have about three years of professional experience with 3D scanning, and the main scanner I use at work is a Scantech KSCAN Magic 2.
I’m thinking about buying a scanner for my own side business. Since the KSCAN Magic 2 is around five years old now, I’ve been comparing it to newer “prosumer” scanners like the Revopoint Metro Y Ultra. On paper, the specifications seem surprisingly similar.
My question is for anyone who has used both high-end metrology scanners and these newer, much cheaper scanners:
Has the technology advanced enough that today’s prosumer scanners are genuinely comparable to what professional scanners offered five years ago? Or are the similar specifications mostly marketing, with the real-world performance still being in a completely different league?
I’m especially interested in things like tracking stability, ease of use, scan quality, accuracy in real-world conditions, and how much cleanup is required afterward.
I’d love to hear from people who have hands-on experience with both.

I’m looking for someone to do me a wheel centre cap. I bought some wheels had them posted to me. But they arrived but centre cap was missing from one. Tried company but there old wheels so no look there. So wondering if anyone can do one for me please. Regards

This Mini Cooper S engine bay ended up being a really good test for the Creality Sermoon P1 because it is not a huge vehicle, but the front end is packed with detail.

Unlike scanning a larger bumper or body panel where there is a lot of open surface area to track from, this scan had a lot of tight geometry in a small space: the upper radiator support, headlights, strut towers, bumper edge, intake area, engine cover, hoses, reservoirs, brackets, and the front crash structure all sitting close together.

I scanned this at 1 mm resolution with the Sermoon P1. The goal was to capture the engine bay and front-end layout as a usable reference mesh, mostly for documenting the available space and understanding how the major components sit in relation to each other. For automotive work, this kind of scan can be useful before planning custom brackets, intake routing, accessory mounts, radiator/intercooler clearance, or general CAD layout around the front of the car.

What stood out to me most was how well the scan held together across different surface types. The Mini has smooth painted areas, black plastic trim, curved fender edges, deep pockets, and a lot of mechanical detail in the bay. Those transitions can make tracking more difficult, especially when moving from broad exterior shapes into the more cluttered engine area.

For this one, I treated the scan more like a “walk around the structure” instead of chasing every small detail right away. I started by capturing the larger front-end shapes first so the scan had a strong base, then worked inward toward the engine components from a few different angles. That helped keep the mesh connected and made the deeper areas easier to capture.

The final result came out really useful as an overall reference. It is not meant to replace a high-resolution inspection scan of each individual component, but for seeing the full engine bay layout, bumper relationship, mounting areas, and available space, it gives a clear picture of the vehicle’s front-end structure.

Biggest lesson from this scan: smaller cars are not automatically easier to scan. Sometimes the compact packaging makes them more challenging because everything is layered together, and you have to plan your angles carefully to avoid losing deeper areas.

Curious how others approach engine bay scans — do you usually capture the entire front end as one scan, or separate the exterior/engine bay into different scans and merge them afterward?

This bronze statue is a bit smaller than life size and is free-hanging on a white, feature-less wall against bright, sunny sky. Which are quite hart conditions for scanning. I scanned the whole statue in large mode and separately scanned the head section in small IR mode.

Scanning

Scanning was done with the Sermoon P1 in large IR mode with geometry tracking. The P1 was used standalone outdoors in bright sunlight, this caused initially some problems with auto exposure due to the very bright sky but with manual exposure corrected to the statue itself it worked very good. In the camera preview the main scan object should be correctly exposed (even if it only is a small part of the picture against the bright sky). Small mode was scanned in the same manner with the only difference in mode selection.
With initial firmware versions the P1 only could do 5-7fps in IR mode standalone, with the latest version it reaches a stable 19-20FPS. With the increased speed the scan only took roughly 6min without any tracking problems (was actually a bit surprised about this).

Post-Processing

For post processing I first transferred the scan data from the P1 to my workstation. You can either do it by cable where a nice import menu opens or over WiFi where you select the project on the scanner, join the hotspot of the scanner with your PC and send it to the PC (option I chose, simply less cables and quite fast with up to 120MB/s from testing). I then fused the large scan at 1.5mm with 25% noise removal to retain detail (default noise removal tends to be a bit high) and meshed it with default settings. Small mode was processed in the same manner with the difference of using 0,5mm point distance for fusion. Maybe bit more noise removal would have been beneficial for small mode but the noise is still tolerable.

Result

Best have a look at Sketchfab. Looking at the direct comparison it is quite obvious that the small IR mode simply provides more detail in the final result. Due to the closer working distance small mode requires I had some tracking issues on the head, wheres large mode had no problems with tracking at all. Ultimately even in small mode the scan worked and didn't result in garbage data.

Sketchfab

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:

Large Scan: "Statue Monk - Creality Sermoon P1 IR large"
Small Scan: "Statue Monk - Creality Sermoon P1 IR small"

PC Specs

Since a lot of people ask for it:

• AMD Ryzen 7950X
• 128GBGB DDR5 RAM
• RTX 5070Ti Desktop
• A few TB of NVME storage with PCIe Gen4 interface

Hello guys,

I've got this "machine" to not use other term.

I need to use the scans on windows and blender. is any way to do so without a subscription?

Thanks in advice

Hi guys! I bought my first 3D scanner an einstar 2, and of course the first thing I wanted to scan was my truck, this size is normal for a File? And also if you have any advise for getting better 3D scanning cars would be really appreciated

Hey! Would a grey / black cutting mat like the one linked below work as a scanning mat to set up as a global maker work space? Or with the lines would it be too busy?

https://a.co/d/03ga9og9

Seems like it would be a handy thing to just throw parts on.

Thanks!

Edit- Typo

I need to scan this tv stand with screen. I only have Einstar 1, I cant spray it.. its black/dark grey
I dont need fine details. just the position within 1mm.

should i add green tape?

hello
i am getting a work station with a graphic card rtx a2000 ada 8 gb,
is it ok for 3d scanning using einstar rockit or sermoon s1?

Hey! Created a new reddit account to ask this question. I am to purchase a scanner that can achieve a level of scanning higher than what is typical with photogrammetry for rockclimbing holds. I was recommended the einstar vega but wanted to ask around before purchasing! Happy to answer any questions, thanks in advance!

New to 3d scanning and editing mesh. I scanned a car hood with logo and I want to delete the curved surface I need the logo to be curved and stay in place but I can’t cut logo away without making it flat

Hi everyone,

I'm getting started with photogrammetry for 3D environment creation, but I'm a complete beginner. I own a Parrot Bebop 2 and while the camera is capable enough for decent results, I'm struggling with the "automatic capture" aspect.

I know Pix4Dcapture is the industry standard for automated flight plans (grids, circles), but it’s currently out of my budget.

My question is:

Are there any free or open-source alternatives to automate flight missions for this specific drone model?

I have zero experience with manual flying, and I'm worried about not being precise enough to ensure the proper image overlap needed for a high-quality scan. If you know of any mission planning software (even via SDK or community-driven solutions) or have tips on how to manage capture without complex automation, I’d love to hear them!

Also, if any of you have experience using the Bebop 2 for 3D scanning, any tips on image quality or shooting techniques would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Finally had the time and opportunity to improve my accuracy testing methodology for 3d scanners. The previous approach of using a micrometer for testing created quite some discussions about the topic and for myself it was clear that using a proper ball bar or ball plate would be a much better approach. Sadly due to the fact that price of ball bars scales with size I had to get a bit creative to make the most of the 100mm ball plate I have (thanks to Revopoint for supporting my independent testing by providing the ball plate). Before anyone complains: the ball plate doesn't magically create more accurate results for Revopoint scanners.
What I came up with is following: around the ball plate a 3d printed ring with markers is placed so that tracking works by starting with the first sphere, scanning the whole ring (roughly 1.5m of tracking distance) and then scanning the second sphere. To ensure no markers are captured for both spheres simultaneously a plate is added between the spheres to shield both sides against each other.

This setup allows me three testing modes:

• 100mm tracking by directly scanning the ball plate
• 1500mm tracking with the tracking ring
• 1500mm tracking with the tracking ring using global markers

Each of the modes will be performed with 6 iterations. Before testing starts the scanner gets time to warm up to operating temperature and is freshly calibrated. Room temperature will be kept between 20 and 25 deg C (with the material of the ball plate a delta of 10K would mean 0,003mm difference). The ball plate itself is an extended uncertainty of also roughly 0,0036mms (per specs provided by Revopoint support). Hopefully these specs will also be placed on their website for the ball-plate or come with the ball-plate by default.

If you want to print your own tracking ring

Link to Printables: https://www.printables.com/model/1784482-revopoint-ball-plate-15m-tracking-ring