Category: Team’s Status Reports

Since we’ve all been on schedule so far, we took Spring Break off. During the last week of February, we made progress on our prototype and have moved closer to system integration/testing.

Theo built the prototype’s structure, and we’re now just waiting on the suction cup and its mounting components to finish it. See his section for specifics and a photo of the prototype on our scanner. He also made some basic serial code for sending rotation and pumping commands, as well as python code for interfacing over serial. He’ll be working with Sophia to integrate a better version of this in the final control software.

Besides the serial code, Sophia did trial tests of the flatbed scanner with the controller software and found that it had issues with no clear solution. After many attempts and guesses at what was going wrong with the scanner to computer communication, and Theo after attempting to setup the project but finding it incompatible with newer versions of Linux, she’ll be pivoting to a more modular approach that will use unique and more compatible libraries for each OS, keeping the individual OS scanning processes in separate files. This will mean a more incremental approach to ensuring each OS works well without jeopardizing the states of the other OS’s and it won’t rely on an outdated dotnet framework (NAPS2 needed version 4.8, was only supported at all to version 8, current version is version 9).

Yon finished working out the math for normal map construction and detailed his findings in the design report. He also identified 3D scanners we can use for qualification, which gives both Yon and Theo some work next week in designing and manufacturing a test object. Now that a basic python version of the normal map code is implemented and can be used for testing Theo and Sophia’s subsystems, Yon will turn to implementing the normal map math in the design report. He also still has to identify a normal map to depth map pipeline, which can be achieved either in a custom implementation, a C library, or externally through another blender plugin / tool.

A was written by Theo, B was written by Yon, and C was written by Sophia.

Part A: On the global scale, our project has possible uses in the fields of archeology, history, and design. There are no limiting factors in who across the world could access/utilize flatbed 3D scanning besides a possible language barrier in the software (which is easily translatable).

People not in the academic environment would be more likely to use this as hobbyists who want to get detailed scans of their art, sculptures, or other detailed objects. There is a small subculture of photographers who use scanners for their high DPI, and such a group would likely be eager to map their hobby into a third dimension that they can interact with via Blender or other .obj-friendly software.

There is an emphasis throughout our project on making the scanning process user-friendly and hands-off. While this is mainly meant to accommodate repetitive data acquisition, less tech-savvy people would only have to deal with a few more steps than when using a flatbed scanner normally (place manipulator, plug in cables, run software).

Part B: Our project implements a cheap and accessible way to 3D scan small objects. One significant area of application for this technology is in archeology and preservation where cheap, quick, and onsite digitization of cultural artifacts can help preserve clotures and assist dialog and discourse around them.

That said, all technology is a double edged sword. The ability to create quick replicas of historical artifacts makes them vulnerable to pop cloture-ification which could manifest in cultural appropriation.

Part C: Our project uses a low power draw, which is an environmental boon. Especially considering its competitors are larger, complicated machines that would use more energy. Our project also leverages an existing technology, therefore reusing devices and not requiring buying a larger version that uses much more material and energy in manufacturing and usage.

The simplicity of our project also lends itself to environmentalism, since we don’t use any cloud storage, AI features, or other massive energy consumption processes. We don’t even use a separate battery, drawing power from the computer through USB. Open source projects like ours are also generally more sustainable than completely commercialized sources.

Environmental organisms and discoveries can even be captured for future research and knowledge using our project. Since archaeology is a key audience, it’s not a stretch to extend that into general biology. Scanning small bones, skeletons, feathers, footprints, or other small biological features would be possible as long as they aren’t particularly frail. This contributes to the knowledge bank of biological organisms, furthering science’s understanding. The Smithsonian for example has a public access bank of 3D scans, so our project would be perfectly suited to its use for small, detailed objects.

This week has been one of preparation and prototyping. Our Adafruit and first Amazon orders arrived, and we were able to run a test circuit where we checked that both the stepper motor and air pump could be powered and controlled. Electronics-wise, everything is fine; we’ll be waiting for the rest of our orders to come in before we can build our complete prototype. The 3D printed electronics mount had too little clearance in all of its holes, so we’ll be re-printing it with an extra 0.25mm of radius this week.

Software-wise, NAPS2 is proving to be the correct library choice. Sophia was able to implement OS-specific functionality, and the preliminary work can run on Windows and Linux. There is also a consistent file system for saving completed scans. The next steps will be testing computer-printer interactions.

On the signals end, Yon has continued to make progress on the scan/object mapping and has found new research that we may be able to draw inspiration from.

As of right now, we’re currently all on schedule. The only foreseeable issue in the project right now is the possibility of an object with an abrasive surface scratching the bed of the scanner while rotating. We’ll tackle this during the characterization of our prototype, and the most likely solution will be motorizing the vertical movement of the electronics mount so that we pick up the object before rotating it and let it down before we scan it.

Started working on our individual components, specifically creating the device model in CAD, setting up the software project, and looking into more research for the signals processing. We decided to use a suction cup as our friction tip and set up the hardware and electronics necessary to use it in our first prototype. Instead of testing two different prototypes with different manipulators, we can simply test with the suction on and off.

We have ordered all parts that we believe will be necessary at the moment. We should get all of them by next week and be able to start prototyping and testing with them. The 3D printed part we’ll need is also designed and can be printed anytime.

Our next steps are to progress on our individual tasks to keep on track before attempting and testing integration of the components.

Our team created our proposal slide deck and presented it. This helped us flesh out more details of our project and how all of our parts will interact as a system. We considered how user-friendly we wanted the process to be, the maximum amount of time it should take to scan and generate a 3D model, and the scope of what objects would be scannable. We realized some limitations that real world conditions would present to us. We will have to test how much noise will occur from outside lighting and other real conditions with the flatbed. We will also consider different options for our mechanical arm based on how either rotating with a felt tip on a glass surface or electro-adhesion would work with different materials and geometries. Additionally, we need to see if it’d be necessary to place anything under the scanned object, such as film, to prevent scratching or if it would help/hinder rotation of the object.

Next week we plan on looking through the inventory list for components of our manipulator, and placing orders for a flatbed scanner and potentially any manipulator parts that we can’t find in the inventory.