[HN Gopher] Breakthrough in 3D scanning means results are 4500% ... ___________________________________________________________________ Breakthrough in 3D scanning means results are 4500% more accurate Author : rbanffy Score : 52 points Date : 2021-06-30 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.lboro.ac.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (www.lboro.ac.uk) | [deleted] | xbar wrote: | A margin of error of 13.8cm in current 3D scans of human bodies? | I think their baseline is bogusly large. | yorwba wrote: | They're using a commercial scanner: | https://www.sizestream.com/technology | | The margin of error is less surprising if you consider that | they're interested in the precision of measurements like | _hinged upper bust circumference_ , not the position of raw | points in a point cloud. According to the paper "Erroneous | measurements occur because of the 3 D Body Scanner's incorrect | placement of anthropometric landmarks or the physical | positioning of body parts which increase measurement paths | against the algorithms. The 3 D Body Scanner's incorrect | landmark and measurement placement, in this study, causes | measurements with a range of up to 32.9 cm (M=14.6 cm; SD=12.67 | cm)." | | I.e. if the scanner confuses your arm for your leg, that's | going to throw off the measurements a lot. | | It seems like SizeStream could easily improve their product by | applying some basic filtering to remove outliers. | tapland wrote: | Oh yeah. And a grainy surface would give a higher surface | area which if you used that as a measurement for creating | clothes would be bad, but less bad with improved surface | measurements. | changoplatanero wrote: | Yes that seems too big to be true | savant_penguin wrote: | That looks like basic filtering by z score | | Someone should also try median filtering, would that be | considered another breakthrough? | | Edit: just read the code, they also filter by the distance to the | median. | londons_explore wrote: | > average margin of error for current 3D scanning machines is | around 13.8cm | | Sorry _whaaat_?? No 3D scanner I 've ever used has a margin of | error of 13cm!! Typically for person-sized objects margins of | error can be expected to be 1mm typically. | riotnrrd wrote: | Here's the code: | https://github.com/UoMResearchIT/Gryphon/blob/main/gryphon.p... | | Based on a brief read, it looks like the "breakthrough" is | discarding the two measurements in a point group that are the | furthest outliers from the mean. That can't be it, can it? | Because that's an afternoon's work for an intern, not a | breakthrough. | madengr wrote: | More accuracy may be better, but I'd like to see a quick method | of extracting analytic geometry from a 3D scan. | | We have laser scanners and Faro arms at work, and in the end | it's a person manually entering the geometry into Solidworks as | the point cloud is useless. | TeeMassive wrote: | If it was that stimple, then why it was not implemented and/or | widely used before? | cma wrote: | Almost every variation on strategies like that has been used | with depth data. Median filters are more popular. | jjoonathan wrote: | It was, but the authors have an incentive to pretend it's | novel, the press has an incentive to pretend it's novel, and | the patent office has an incentive to pretend it's novel. | FridayoLeary wrote: | The fact that the article mentioned 4500% three times, twice in | the title alone, kind of warned me to take their news with a | pinch of salt. | oezi wrote: | Too late for you to hold up the train of progress, a patent was | already filed. /s | TeMPOraL wrote: | _You_ being the operative word, as in 21st century, patents | are the _definition_ of holding up progress. | verdverm wrote: | That can be true, and so is the idea that if you could not | reap the rewards of your inventions, you wouldn't invest | the effort because it could only be a cost sink. It's more | nuanced and contextual than that. That said, the patent / | trademark (probably any similar system) has up and down | sides | TeMPOraL wrote: | That's why I said "in the 21st century". As far as I | studied this, patents are a really solid idea _in theory_ | , and perhaps they even worked as advertised at some | point in the past. But the way they work today, they're | thoroughly gamed - patent owners get the benefits, the | society doesn't get its promised returns. But I agree, | it's a pretty nuanced topic. | verdverm wrote: | The idea of having time and protection to recoup your | investment still applies today. Being "in the 21st | century" doesn't remove this trade-off nor imply that | progress is held up because of patents. It could be that | progress suffers more without patents. Humanity and | society works better with incentives and freedom of | preferences | sacred_numbers wrote: | Something can be remarkably simple and still a breakthrough at | the same time. Handwashing, for example, is one of the greatest | medical breakthroughs of all time despite its simplicity. | Scene_Cast2 wrote: | On the data side, a simple but effective algorithm is | "lightweight coresets". A couple of line of NumPy, but strong | guarantees and nice properties. | 1123581321 wrote: | Lightweight corsets (shapewear using hose-like material) | were also a simple, effective breakthrough. | ethbr0 wrote: | It made Spanx into a ~$750M company. | sen wrote: | Yes but telling people who already know how to wash their | hands that they should wash them for "more than 1 second and | less than 1 hour" isn't novel, which is effectively what | they're trying to sell here. | | There's nothing in this "breakthrough" that isn't already | being done anyway, and the comparison stats are completely | made up. 13.8cm resolution in current scanners? Have they | even used a 3D scanner made after the millennium turned? | binbag wrote: | 4500%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 | | That's 45,000,000 ppm!!!!! | s_gourichon wrote: | Percentage are broken in many cases because they are ambiguous, | and often difficult to compose. +50% then -50% is not identity | but ratio 3/4. | | A plain explicit ratio is sometimes better. Ratio in decibel, | or "doubling number" can sometimes be valuable alternative, | could be used more often. | | +1 doubling -1 doubling is identity. Same for decibels. | OJFord wrote: | In case it's missing, I think parent's tongue is firmly in | their cheek - point is things like '4500%' are often | manipulatively rendered that way to sound massive, vs. '45x' | for example, which means the same, is just as massive, but | perhaps doesn't sound _as_ crazy? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-30 23:00 UTC)