They called the device they came up with PaleoScan. It consists of a high-quality camera mounted to a frame that moves on two axes to take thousands of individual raw photos of a fossil under controlled light conditions. The whole setup is operated by a microcontroller and a touchscreen. After capturing photos, it immediately sends the raw images off to the cloud for processing offsite. The software Silva’s team developed then calibrates and stitches together all the photos into a 3D model of the fossil.
It's annoying the article is written in such a way that this was hidden halfway through it, given that it is the subject of the headline. Even then, from the article, it was still unclear to me...
It's annoying the article is written in such a way that this was hidden halfway through it, given that it is the subject of the headline.
Even then, from the article, it was still unclear to me how the end result looks like. They do link to this research article that has several videos with much more details.
It looks like it works on similar principles as other 3d scanners that are commercially available but more for their specific conditions. These show that the result is indeed processed to create a 3d representation, much in the same way as the 3d scanners I mentioned earlier. They mention nothing about cost, but looking at the video it might even be a lot cheaper than commercially available 3d scanners. It also seems like it would be relatively easy to source the materials needed to build a setup when one is not available yet.
Very interesting subject. But I almost skipped over it because of the headline, starting one in this day and age with "This innovative device" brings me back at least half a decade and reminds me...
Very interesting subject. But I almost skipped over it because of the headline, starting one in this day and age with "This innovative device" brings me back at least half a decade and reminds me of SEO blog spam.
The article itself is also structured in a very weird way. It is as if the writer couldn't decide if the fossils or the scanner is the main subject. First we are introduced to the problem, then we suddenly switch to the fossils in question before finally sort of talking about the scanner without actually talking about the thing much. Then in the closing paragraph there is some rambling about potential use, some out of the blue interjection about regulations and a few other bibs and bobs.
It's annoying the article is written in such a way that this was hidden halfway through it, given that it is the subject of the headline.
Even then, from the article, it was still unclear to me how the end result looks like. They do link to this research article that has several videos with much more details.
It looks like it works on similar principles as other 3d scanners that are commercially available but more for their specific conditions. These show that the result is indeed processed to create a 3d representation, much in the same way as the 3d scanners I mentioned earlier. They mention nothing about cost, but looking at the video it might even be a lot cheaper than commercially available 3d scanners. It also seems like it would be relatively easy to source the materials needed to build a setup when one is not available yet.
So pretty neat overall.
Very interesting subject. But I almost skipped over it because of the headline, starting one in this day and age with "This innovative device" brings me back at least half a decade and reminds me of SEO blog spam.
The article itself is also structured in a very weird way. It is as if the writer couldn't decide if the fossils or the scanner is the main subject. First we are introduced to the problem, then we suddenly switch to the fossils in question before finally sort of talking about the scanner without actually talking about the thing much. Then in the closing paragraph there is some rambling about potential use, some out of the blue interjection about regulations and a few other bibs and bobs.
The article just did feel all over the place.