It would be interesting to see a comparison of data captured with the orbis compared to for example the same area captured with a Leica P40. When doing such checks VLX was usually within 25 mm of the P40 data. The issue I saw with vlx the most was the inability to differentiate small rectangular objects from small round objects as it was smoothening the edges. Compared to that the orbis does seem to look a bit more crisp Edit: Just saw the comparison to the RTC360 video
I think it would be useful to throw into the mix of this sort of comparison the different techniques being used. I know the manufacturers tend to try not to, but half the issue with debugging data is knowing what was used to reconstruct or register. I have concluded that the Navvis uses photogrammetry and slam, because if you look at the data it contains artifacts that are consitent with that for example small scale false geometry waves at tonal changes. I'm guessing at this stage the Orbis is using slam alone, but the exciting thing is that rumour has it that FARO/Geoslam have built their own new replacement for the velodyne puck everyone else uses, which results in the 30mm fuzz. Sounds like a great foundation for future products.
Thank you for the comments I can’t say whether or not the NavVis uses photogrammetry too. I have heard from others in the industry that they have seen the same thing but not clear whether it was from photogrammetry or if the software uses best fit plains and supposes data to fill in. I know that I have used the Faro in pitch black and with the lights on with no difference I. Quality of data. Which I can assume that photogrammetry isn’t involved
Mostly. The Orbis went up a floor and covered a little bit of that area as well. The more I’m around NavVis the more I realize that they generally spend more time than most to cover an are. The same appears to be true about the data. At Geo week we allowed to manufactures to provide us with processing time and the number they provided was 11 hours
@@mackkowalski1 What I have noticed from using our VLX vs our Horizon, is that seem to spend more time with the VLX because we have to top (dead stop) to take photos and you need to take several photos to get good colorization. We are looking at upgrading our Horizon to an Orbis - but when using either one of those with their cameras, you just walk and focus on the space you are scanning. I think the Obis and Horizon have the advantage in the form factor.
The Orbis is around 45k usd and 5k for a permanent license for the software. The VLX is around 80k and the software is cloud based. You pay per use so it’s quite difficult to estimate cost
The VLX3 requirement to stop to take a photo really increases scan time.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of data captured with the orbis compared to for example the same area captured with a Leica P40. When doing such checks VLX was usually within 25 mm of the P40 data. The issue I saw with vlx the most was the inability to differentiate small rectangular objects from small round objects as it was smoothening the edges. Compared to that the orbis does seem to look a bit more crisp
Edit: Just saw the comparison to the RTC360 video
I think it would be useful to throw into the mix of this sort of comparison the different techniques being used. I know the manufacturers tend to try not to, but half the issue with debugging data is knowing what was used to reconstruct or register. I have concluded that the Navvis uses photogrammetry and slam, because if you look at the data it contains artifacts that are consitent with that for example small scale false geometry waves at tonal changes. I'm guessing at this stage the Orbis is using slam alone, but the exciting thing is that rumour has it that FARO/Geoslam have built their own new replacement for the velodyne puck everyone else uses, which results in the 30mm fuzz. Sounds like a great foundation for future products.
Thank you for the comments I can’t say whether or not the NavVis uses photogrammetry too. I have heard from others in the industry that they have seen the same thing but not clear whether it was from photogrammetry or if the software uses best fit plains and supposes data to fill in. I know that I have used the Faro in pitch black and with the lights on with no difference I. Quality of data. Which I can assume that photogrammetry isn’t involved
It's difficult to spot noise in perspective view, switch to ortho for a better check.
I've gone through both perspective and ortho on a couple different platforms and notice very little difference as far as noise
I think what is going to happen is that the Orbis data will get better much quicker now that they are Faro.
The data already has. Wish they had updated the camera
@@mackkowalski1 yeah I agree on the camera. But it's not too bad. Did you try any of the flash scans?
@@CR3DT yes, I forget how many. I think the Orbis is super competitive with the VLX already and half the price
So with Orbis it took 20 minutes and with Navvis it took 48 minutes. Did both scanners cover the same area?
Mostly. The Orbis went up a floor and covered a little bit of that area as well. The more I’m around NavVis the more I realize that they generally spend more time than most to cover an are. The same appears to be true about the data. At Geo week we allowed to manufactures to provide us with processing time and the number they provided was 11 hours
@@mackkowalski1 What I have noticed from using our VLX vs our Horizon, is that seem to spend more time with the VLX because we have to top (dead stop) to take photos and you need to take several photos to get good colorization. We are looking at upgrading our Horizon to an Orbis - but when using either one of those with their cameras, you just walk and focus on the space you are scanning. I think the Obis and Horizon have the advantage in the form factor.
My man… ortho view.
Not always my favorite but I’ll try to see if it shows on video better
how much do they cost to buy?
The Orbis is around 45k usd and 5k for a permanent license for the software. The VLX is around 80k and the software is cloud based. You pay per use so it’s quite difficult to estimate cost
Can we get the pose of the image please?
I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you mean. You would like the raw images taken?
yep, also with the position of the raw images@@mackkowalski1
@@enmingjiang I'll see what I can dig up. I'm dealing with all the data from Geo week so it might be a little bit
Thanks a lot!@@mackkowalski1