Dear Pablo, We used Vivid 910 intensively (see, e.g., http://www.miiz.waw.pl/miz/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=110 - click on 3D scanner) but it is really good for rather large objects (preferably being at least 1/2 of size of the human skull). For smaller objects PICZA LPX-1200 by Roland may be some choice but we did not work with it yet, so no real experience. Best wishes, Wieslaw
************************************************************************** Wieslaw Bogdanowicz Editor-in-Chief of Acta Chiropterologica Professor and Head Museum & Institute of Zoology PAS Wilcza 64 00-679 Warszawa Poland E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. (+48) 22 628 73 04 Tel./fax (+48) 22 629 63 02 http://www.miiz.waw.pl/periodicals/acta-chiropterologica Acta Chiropterologica on line: www.ingentaconnect.com -----Original Message----- From: morphmet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:19 PM To: morphmet Subject: 3D Scanners how good? Dear friends, I would like to know your opinion on the reliability, accuracy and precision of either the KONICA MINOLTA VIVID 910 or 9I and the NextEngine 3D Scanner for very small objects like bat and rodent skulls. After a quick investigation in the respective web pages I fear that these cameras are not powerful enough for acquiring the important features present in small mammalian skulls. Could you also suggest alternative cameras in the cost range of the former two? Thank you Pablo Pablo Jarrin Grad. student Dept. of Biology Boston Univ. -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
