El software introduce también una nueva manera de escalar un modelo 3D con mayor precisión utilizando la herramienta de "Unidades/dimensiones". A partir de aquí los usuarios pueden ingresar en el modelo 3D, cualquier medición conocida en una de las regiones y el propio software se encargará de generar las medidas apropiadas en relación con otras regiones del mapa. Meshmixer 3.0 se hizo público el pasado mes de enero en la conferencia Autodesk Research en SiGGraph 2016.
The aim of this presented study was to analyse and describe a solution and workflow to register the intraoral position of the maxillary dentoalveolar arch simultaneously to the extraoral 3D photography with an intra-extraoral geometry using a portable 3D scanner. This would enable a virtual and radiation-free registration of the intraoral dental situation to the extraoral facial anatomy. The provided workflow could be used for prosthetic/orthodontic/orthognathic planning and post-interventional follow-ups and provides a recommendation for a straightforward geometry design and a step-by-step explanation.
New Meshmixer 2016 Portable
DOWNLOAD: https://cinurl.com/2vCD6r
In addition, facial 3D photography has reached a high level of accuracy and reproducibility, even with portable devices [11, 13, 14]. Additionally, intraoral scanners have become a standardized and promising tool and the direct data capturing in terms of scanning/digitalization of the impression achieves more accurate results than the indirect/conventional way by creating a corresponding plaster model [22]. But a whole arch scan might be susceptible for more deviation in accuracy and should be restricted to ten units without wide edentulous areas [31, 32]. The direct scanning of dental arches takes longer than a conventional impression. Further, application is restricted to adults and to patients with regular mouth opening. The scanning time and the dimensions of the intraoral scanners are still too long and big for regular use in children or even newborns for diagnostic purposes or full virtual feeding-plate planning and production [33]. Therefore, our workflow for simultaneous, radiation-free intra-extraoral registration remains dependent on conventional impression-taking.
FIGURE 7. 3D Sketchfab model of a prolific fossil site in Florida after the 2016 field season. Additional data is superimposed onto the 3D model and obtainable by clicking on the numbered plot within the locality. An example of this expandable window features the dentary of the North and Central American proboscidea, Rhynchotherium edense.
Knowledge of intrinsic and environmental variables that control sweetpotato shape is of fundamental and applied importance. Prior work in sweetpotato and other horticultural produce traditionally characterized the shape of objects by direct measurements of L and maximum diameter (W) and using the LW as an index of shape (Lowe and Wilson, 1974; Wang, et al., 2016). LW is the current de facto standard for characterizing sweetpotato shape. Although LW is sensitive and descriptive of some types of shape variability, this index may be inadequate to describe small variations and limits the full exploitation of shape analysis (Snee and Andrews, 1971). There are other important features like SA and VOL that describe sweetpotato shape (Wright et al., 1986). In general, knowledge of SA and VOL can be applied in the design of machinery, in predicting amounts of surface applied chemicals, and in quantification of bruise, abrasion, and insect damage (Wang and Nguang, 2007; Wright et al., 1986). SA and SAVOL are also useful for calculating rate of postharvest loss in horticultural produce (Furness et al., 2002; Lownds et al., 1993; Moreda et al., 2012). Wright et al. (1986) described an indirect method for estimating sweetpotato storage root VOL and SA that involved capturing images of samples, extraction of features, and inputting these data into predictive equations. LaBonte and Wright (1993) described the procedure for using a shrink-wrap method to measure sweetpotato SA. Currently, the shrink-wrap and water displacement methods are the accepted standards for measuring SA and VOL, respectively, in sweetpotato as well as other horticultural produce (Furness et al., 2002; Wang and Nguang, 2007). Such methods are very tedious, slow, and prone to measurement errors (Wang and Nguang, 2007).
The growing demand for sweetpotato French fry (Sato et al., 2018) and other processed products has increased the need for producing storage roots of desired shape and consistency. In the processing industry, especially in French fry processing, uniform, nontapered storage roots are desirable to reduce nonuniform slices (Hoque and Saha, 2017). This requires the development of rapid and accurate methods to measure shape attributes. Such tools will lead to the development and testing of methods and approaches for manipulating shape in sweetpotato. Three-dimensional (3D) scanners are now being tested or routinely used in medical, industrial and other applications (Aikins, et al., 2019; Ravanelli et al., 2017; Rosicky et al., 2016). Reported advantages of 3D scanner-based measurements include high accuracy and precision, rapid acquisition, noninvasiveness, and the ability to rotate and view the 3D scan from all angles; the main disadvantage is the high cost and requirement for increased processing capacity of computers (Knoops et al., 2017). Rosicky et al. (2016) classified currently available 3D scanners as low-end (less than $1000), high-end (less than $25,000), and specialty high-end (more than $25,000). The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using the low-cost Structure 3D scanner ($499; Occipital Inc., San Francisco, CA) to measure L, W, SA, and VOL in sweetpotato. A secondary objective was to generate preliminary information on sweetpotato shape features related to the desired shape profile for processing, in particular French fry processing.
To date, there are several 3D scanners that are commercially available, with varying measurement accuracies and precision. The Structure 3D scanner, along with similar low-cost structured light-based 3D scanners, were first introduced for the consumer gaming industry where accuracy of measurements is not important (Li et al., 2020). However, the Structure 3D scanner is being tested for possible use in industrial, medical, and other settings (Aikins et al., 2019; Conkle et al., 2018; Kalantari and Nechifor, 2016; Knoops et al., 2017). Conkle et al. (2018) noted that 3D imaging is now new for anthropometry, but the Structure 3D scanner shows promise as a substitute for manual measurements, although further research and development is needed to improve the quality of anthropometric data. After comparing the Structure 3D sensor with high-end 3D scanners, Knoops et al. (2017) concluded that it shows fair agreement with systems more than 10-fold its cost and shows potential for clinical use. Aikins et al. (2019) used the Structure 3D scanner to measure soil surface and furrow profiles and concluded that the accuracy was similar to the relatively more expensive laser and LIDAR-based solutions. Johnson and Symons (2019) observed volume measurement errors and recommended additional studies, but concluded that the Structure 3D scanner is a low-cost alternative for measuring equine limb swelling as a result of exercise and mechanical stress. Technological improvements will likely lead to increased resolution, reducing potential measurement errors (He et al., 2017). A new version of the Structure 3D sensor has already been released with increased accuracy and tracking capabilities; the model used in the current study is no longer available (Occipital, 2019). It is possible that the methods and procedures optimized for the current version of the Structure 3D scanner may need to be revised. For example, the optimum scanning distance as described in Fig. 1 may have to be recalibrated due to the revised accuracy specifications.
Dec.19, 2016 - 3D Systems has launched 3D Sprint 2.0, a new software solution for accelerating additive manufacturing workflows for 3D Systems' plastic 3D printers. The 3D printing software reduces the need for users to divide projects among multiple software programs, resulting in a simplified printing process. More
Dec.15, 2016 - Korea's Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning has announced the finalization of a smartphone 3D video technology that has been under development since 2013. The affordable stereoscopic video capture technology could have applications in augmented and virtual reality. More
Dec.5, 2016 - Microsoft has just unveiled some exciting new upgrades for its Windows 10 integrated 3D design and printing app, 3D Builder. Among them are compatibility with Windows 10 Mobile and Xbox One consoles. More
Nov.28, 2016 - MatterHackers has released MatterControl 1.6, the most advanced version of the free, open-source 3D printer controller to date. Version 1.6 utilizes an innovative Print Recovery system, expanded cloud control, and multiple UI enhancements. More
Nov.17, 2016 - 3D printing software company Autodesk has added a raft of major updates to its recently released Netfabb 2017. The new features and updates will boost the software's capabilities and provide a complete end-to-end solution that will help commercial customers test, prepare and 3D print new products. More
Nov.2, 2016 - In an attempt to fight the rampant theft of 3D printable designs and assets, new startup D3CRYPT3D has launched an accessible file encryption system that secures files without changing their file type or making them incompatible with their native software. More
Oct.26, 2016 - Simplify3D is upping its international appeal with the launch of its recent update for its V3.1 software. The update, which was announced earlier today, introduces multi-language support for 5 new languages, including Japanese, French, Italian, Spanish, and German. More
Oct.26, 2016 - Microsoft has officially announced Paint 3D, a new and improved version of its classic drawing application that now features exciting new tools and capabilities like 3D drawing. More 2ff7e9595c
Comments