FLOUR POWER!!! Get Better Scans From The Seal 3D Scanner

In this video I go through tips made by the Seal 3D scanner community and tips made by 3DMakerPro themselves. But do they work? Find out here!

Chapters:
Test 1 - Bright Lighting - 1:08
Test 2 - No Lighting - 4:08
Test 3 - Flour Coating - 6:07
Test 4 - Flour Coating (No Lighting) - 7:11
Final Test - 7:57
Specific Size - 9:29
Closing Remarks - 9:42

[chrisv]

Im getting really good scans with my Seal Lite using the current iteration of their software. At first I was getting terrible scans and was tempted to return it, but I gave it some more time and really took the time to learn what works and what doesn't. I learned that using a tripod and the turn table is a must, it keeps the scanner from losing tracking and makes noise cleanup easier. I also learned that lighting is key, you want to be in a well lit room, preferably with an overhead lamp hovering over the turn table. Also keep sensitivity at lower values to reduce noise. Lastly take multiple scans from different angles and take your time cleaning up any noise using the various lasso tools, this is important as you'll want to help the program as much as possible during its "auto" noise reduction setting when processing. I've been able to get really good scans, even scans of videogame controllers (both halves) that are good enough to be 3D printed and used.

[phillipmyers]

You have the sensitivity set way too high. That is what is causing a lot of the static on your scans. Turn it all the way down to the lowest setting of 2. Keep the lighting low it doesn't need to be completely off. I actually use a Photo Box with the lighting on the lowest level. You are not going to get rid of all of the static but you can cut it way back. Also, use the JMS Edit mode to delete the turntable and as much of the static as possible before using the Processing mode. This will make a big difference in the Processed scans. I don't use the Processing mode within JMS instead, I use the free software CloudCompare to clean up my scans created in JMS.

[tseven]

I have the same scanner along with the multi-axis turntable. After watching yours and other's videos I'm not sure I want to keep it. I haven't opened them since I might sell them.

Also 10-300mm is equal to 1-30cm (just multiply cm by 10 to get mm)

[Butch]

Mate, thanks for this, thats been really helpful am toying with 3D scanners to scan parts for 1/72 scale Aircraft and Armour models so I can create parts and print them on my 3d printer. Are you planning on reviewing other scanners? Cheers again most helpful 🙂

[RGS_]

Hello, thank you, I had bought the scanner and saw your video... I ran to return it,

I'm going to buy the Revopoint MINI, do you have information about it?

[todd]

Pretty sure the high sensitivity is your issue, that's gonna create a ton of extra noise

[scott]

What test model is that i want to give it a try.

[rogeroneill]

I've gotten some good results, but for larger items. It definitely doesn't do high detail and takes multiple attempts. It's definitely not a great scanner but it's super cheap. I'm debating returning it if they can't figure out any bug fixes.

[Sloganlogo]

could the scanner have a malfunction ?? just wondering ??

[scott]

I found AESUB scanning spray made a huge difference. Also Daktarin foot spray powder works well if on a budget. Where did my link go :( . just want to show my results.

[starguy]

I see that you are learning. I have the same scanner and it has worked really well. I tried creality ferrit first, and it just couldn't do small objects. I would tell you how to do all this correctly, but once you trouble shoot and learn for yourself everything else becomes easier. good luck.

[DArkwIng]

Why is your sensitivity cranked to 10? Will not that induce noise, and based on the size of the object vs what I can scan on my Einstar is sick details!

[jorge_mora_]

haven't you try baby powder 66% with alcohol 33% with a spray bottle, and let it dry, or go to a pharmacy and buy TING foot spray, it works really well. I have a revopoint POP2 3d scanner and I can get better scans than this with this technique, I hope this works well for you.

[Azmodan]

my first scans look much better and I tested on my printed model, i.e. the devil's bust, and the scanner captured details on the corners that are quite small, about 0.5mm.
Your sensitivity is definitely too high.
You have simplification turned on, scanners do not perform correct retopology, so I didn't even use it, otherwise you can forget about sharp edges.
The 3 factory settings of the model quality are quite low, the highest one has a mesh density of 0.32mm, so I set it to advanced and the density is 0.1 (the scanner has a max of 0.05) below that there is too much noise.

I would do a review but it would be a waste of time unless they gave me a phone holder.

[OnnieKoski]

I bought the light version, and it’s pretty much the same. If it’s not a simple organic object, it just doesn’t work. My OpenScan build works MUCH better than this thing.

[LucianaHaill]

ive watched all the unpaid user videosx as I preordered the Seal, multi axis turntable to save me the yoga moves doing 100s of captures etc, . and its utter nonsense, lighting, scale of object.. software is awful on Mac M1 16gig, and wont record to iPhone with iOS JM studio... awful heavy smartgrip is redundant. 3DMaker pro suggest I sell it on - how bad is that - passing on tech you are not happy with ... so I'm pushing for refund minus a China shipping label that ensures the kit is returned and no lost in the post... utter disappointment and 15 hours or more wasted. Polycam3D and iPhone so much more dynamic, if not for tiny war hammer figurines

[DDDstudio]

I must say that your operation is a lack of professionalism displayed during the 3D scanning process. While scanning, it seems like you're being too rigid in terms of adjusting the lighting and relying on powder. Maybe trying out different approaches, like using a different object or bigger object for scanning, could give you better outcomes. It's doubtful that any scanner could handle the kind of flawed testing methods you're employing.