Premium
Photogrammetry or 3D Surface Scanning – Which tool works best for anatomical specimens?
Author(s) -
Dixit Ishan,
Piemontesi Joshua,
Kennedy Samantha,
Kennedy Bruce,
Krebs Claudia
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.444.5
Subject(s) - photogrammetry , computer science , workflow , laser scanning , 3d scanning , process (computing) , scanner , artificial intelligence , mobile device , computer vision , stereoscopy , computer graphics (images) , optics , laser , physics , database , operating system
High fidelity 3D representations of anatomy are becoming increasingly popular as educators capture anatomical specimens for use in virtual and augmented reality applications or for providing a 3D representation that can be freely manipulated in web applications. The question then arises which tool best suits the task at hand ‐ both 3D scanning and photogrammetry are options. We have compared the use case for these technologies in medical education ‐ our aim was to create 3D models of anatomical specimens with high quality and resolution. Various qualitative and quantitative criteria were applied to determine and compare the performance fidelity and results of 3D scanning with an Artec Space Spider versus photogrammetry using a standard DSL camera and Agisoft PhotoScan (PS) Standard Edition. We compared the basic principles of setup and use of both technologies – while photogrammetry requires accurate lighting and some rigging for the camera to provide consistent results, the 3D surface scanner is handheld and since it acts as its own light source the scanning results are independent of environmental factors. We found that the workflow and technique for best use of these technologies varies and the investment in these techniques depends on the needs of the user. We established protocols and setting for both techniques to standardize and streamline the data acquisition process. Each technology has advantages in some metrics and disadvantages in others. While photogrammetry provided the better surface textures, 3D surface scanning provided more accurate 3D geometries in particular in those specimens that were more complex or had highly reflective surfaces. We also found that 3D surface scanning was able to more accurately capture the geometries of softer specimens that may distort as they are handled. Overall, both technologies yield excellent results for the use in anatomical sciences education. The decision about which technology to invest in depends on the characteristics of the specimens that need to be scanned as well as the environmental parameters. Support or Funding Information Supported by the Strategic Investment Fund of the UBC Faculty of Medicine This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .