Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 9 – uploaded by Salvatore Barba

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 9. Antlers length and scale measured with the conventional tape

Figure 9 Antlers length and scale measured with the conventional tape

Related Figures (11)

Figure 1. Parts of the roe deer antlers
Figure 1. Parts of the roe deer antlers
Figure 2. Raw data of the DAVID (left) and the ARTEC MH (right)
Figure 2. Raw data of the DAVID (left) and the ARTEC MH (right)
On the contrary, the model developed with the DAVID presents a huge amount of holes and, due to its big size, this makes it almost impossible to fix. This proves that the use of this instrumentation is better for simple and flat objects and not for objects with such complex surfaces, such as the ones used for this project.
On the contrary, the model developed with the DAVID presents a huge amount of holes and, due to its big size, this makes it almost impossible to fix. This proves that the use of this instrumentation is better for simple and flat objects and not for objects with such complex surfaces, such as the ones used for this project.
Figure 5. DEM comparison of the DAVID (left) and the ARTEC MH (right) Figure 4. Holes on the models of the DAVID (left) and the ARTEC MH (right)
Figure 5. DEM comparison of the DAVID (left) and the ARTEC MH (right) Figure 4. Holes on the models of the DAVID (left) and the ARTEC MH (right)
Figure 3. Textured 3D model
Figure 3. Textured 3D model
ihe analysis was then taken further, setting + | mm as the threshold for maximum and minimum deviations to clarify and estimate the level of noise on the second surface (Figure 7). This left clear evidence that both models present a big difference in surface roughness: the one by the ARTEC MH presented a much more accurate and uniform surface. Furthermore, we couldn’t manage to completely close the DAVID model due a great amount of surface holes on the rear of the antlers (Figure 4). To compare the surface bumps on each model, a DEM analysis was made to detect deviations from a plane of reference (Figure 5). Another comparison was made analyzing deviations of the DAVID model in relation to the ARTEC model (Figure 6). We can observe a maximum difference of + 10 mm (although what is relevant is the small percentage of triangles seen on the histogram) and a maximum distribution value in the range of + 1 mm. The analysis was then taken further, setting + 1 mm as the threshold for maximum and minimum deviations to clarify and estimate the level of noise on the second surface (Figure 7). This left clear evidence that both models present a big difference in surface roughness: the one by the ARTEC MH presented a much more accurate and uniform surface.
ihe analysis was then taken further, setting + | mm as the threshold for maximum and minimum deviations to clarify and estimate the level of noise on the second surface (Figure 7). This left clear evidence that both models present a big difference in surface roughness: the one by the ARTEC MH presented a much more accurate and uniform surface. Furthermore, we couldn’t manage to completely close the DAVID model due a great amount of surface holes on the rear of the antlers (Figure 4). To compare the surface bumps on each model, a DEM analysis was made to detect deviations from a plane of reference (Figure 5). Another comparison was made analyzing deviations of the DAVID model in relation to the ARTEC model (Figure 6). We can observe a maximum difference of + 10 mm (although what is relevant is the small percentage of triangles seen on the histogram) and a maximum distribution value in the range of + 1 mm. The analysis was then taken further, setting + 1 mm as the threshold for maximum and minimum deviations to clarify and estimate the level of noise on the second surface (Figure 7). This left clear evidence that both models present a big difference in surface roughness: the one by the ARTEC MH presented a much more accurate and uniform surface.
Figure 6. Deviations comparison of the DAVID model to the ARTEC model, threshold + 10 mm
Figure 6. Deviations comparison of the DAVID model to the ARTEC model, threshold + 10 mm
Figure 7. Deviations comparison of the DAVID model to the ARTEC model, threshold + 1 mm
Figure 7. Deviations comparison of the DAVID model to the ARTEC model, threshold + 1 mm
Figure 8. Antlers measuring method (“Reglamento de Funcionamiento y Manual Practico de Andalucia”)
Figure 8. Antlers measuring method (“Reglamento de Funcionamiento y Manual Practico de Andalucia”)
Figure 11. Antlers scale measurement on the 3D model Figure 10. Antler length measurement on the 3D model The scale of the antlers refers to the maximum interior distance. The measurement made with the tape gave as an approximate result of 9,0 cm. On the other hand, the 3D model gave us an exact value of 9,36 cm (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Antlers scale measurement on the 3D model Figure 10. Antler length measurement on the 3D model The scale of the antlers refers to the maximum interior distance. The measurement made with the tape gave as an approximate result of 9,0 cm. On the other hand, the 3D model gave us an exact value of 9,36 cm (Figure 11).
Related topics:
Photogrammetry3D laser scanner
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved