Comparing 3D digitising technologies: where are the differences?

Abstract

We tested five 3D digitization systems and one method of 2D+ recording on one object: a human skull from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences collection (RBINS). We chose a skull because it has both simple and complex structures and different materials such as bone and enamel within the same object. The results obtained with the different technologies were compared for 3D shape accuracy, texture quality, digitization and processing time and finally price. Our results show that the structured light scanner provided the best results to record external structures, CT was found to be the best to record internal structures and is also the best for recording reflecting material such as enamel. Photogrammetry is a very good compromise between portability, price and quality. RTI is a method of 2D+ recording and is a complementary technique, using the same equipment than photogrammetry, which can capture small morphological features that are not easily digitized with the 3D techniques.