----- Forwarded message from
Friederike Jordan <[email protected]> -----
Date:
Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:26:19 -0400
From: Friederike Jordan
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: Friederike Jordan
<[email protected]>
Subject: data collection issue:Mic
vs laser scanner
To: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Hi everyone,
it has been mentioned that anatomical landmarks are more
easily digitised with a microscribe as compared to a laser scanner. I also came
across a
study, which found that type 1 landmarks can be replicated with a slightly
higher accuracy using a microscribe.
My predicament is that I am planning to
digitise anatomical landmarks (types 1-3) on skeletal material and to
interpolate
semi-landmarks for defining curved outlines.
I guess scanning a skeletal specimen is the only
method, in 3D GM, to interpolate semi-landmarks to a curved outline that
is devoid of homologous landmarks. (I surmise this is not possible based on a
3D coordinate data set digitised with a microscribe, as all landmarks are
connected by straight lines and hence, all curves eliminated.)
So I guess I will have to collect 3D data via
scans?
I was wondering whether it is really true that no editing
is
required when scanning an object with the NextEngine laser scanner, as stated
on the website. What kind of drawbacks does this scanner have? Do CT scans
have a higher resolution?
Pictures (in a cuople of papers) of surfaces of scanned
3D skeletal
material using other laser scanners do not show too much detail. I was
wondering if anybody has been scanning skulls or any other skeletal material
using
the NextEngine laser scanner and wouldn’t mind emailing me one scan and a
picture of the original feature for comparison. That would be fantastic!
Thank you very much in advance!
bye,
Friederike----- End forwarded message -----
