There is a simple way to test a 3D scanner's accuracy that many companies have the resources to perform:
Step 1: Place a series of photogrammetry dots on a 3D-shaped object, such as a table with several blocks on it, or a chair seat, legs, and floor. The goal is to fill the 3D scanner's calibration field of view, and also fill the Z depth of the system's calibration.
Step 2: Perform a photogrammetry session on the dots using a standard photogrammetry system (this can often be performed as a service if your company doesn't have a photogrammetry system)
Step 3: Measure the targets with the 3D scanner. Most high-end/industrial 3D scanners have dotfinders. Collect only a single shot of the targets.
Step 4: Export the targets measured by the 3D scanner.
Step 5: Compare the targets measured by the 3D scanner with the same targets measured by the photogrammetry session.
WHY IS THIS A GOOD TEST? Because targets are one of the easiest things to measure in the optics world. It is a well-understood process to find white dots on a black background in the imaging processing world. The accuracy of the measured dot will almost ALWAYS be more accurate than the accuracy of the 3D scanner's surface measurement capabilities, because projected patterns will not be found as accurately as targets.
Targets represent perfect contrast on a perfectly white, Lambertian (diffuse) surface against a perfectly black, Lambertian (diffuse) surface, on a perfectly-round circle. Fringes and projected patterns, on the other hand, are much more difficult to locate in the camera image. Since the 3D reconstruction (either targets or surface) is intimately linked to how well the features are found in the camera image, the "Dot Finding Method" provides a clear window into the system's calibration.
If you would like assistance conducting a metrology study such as this, we would be happy to assist!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
2011 Camera Improvements
The camera is the cornerstone of a 3D scanner's or photogrammetry system's performance.
More pixels = more accurate
Higher-sensitivity pixels = fewer pixels needed
Larger pixels = more sensitive (i.e. capable of holding more photons)
Faster data transmit rate = more freedom for algorithm development
In 2011, Twin Coast Metrology's primary camera supplier began accepting orders for 29Megapixel cameras. Previously, 16Megapixel cameras were the limit. The 29 Megapixel cameras have similar sensitivities, similar data transmit rates (measured in frames per second), and utilize the same lensing. In other words, the camera industry is progressing. The 29 Megapixel cameras are not drastically more expensive than the 16Megapixel cameras.
In addition, new mid-level cameras were released, which offer high-quality 8Megapixel images at fast transfer rates. These are a lower-cost option, and are suitable for systems that do not require the accuracy that a 16 or 29 Megapixel camera can deliver. The 8Megapixel cameras are not drastically more expensive than the 4Megapixel cameras that were used as Twin Coast Metrology's mid-level cameras.
To recap the relationship between pixels and accuracy, we'll use targets as an example, since almost every high-end 3D scanner has a target-finding capability:
The practical limit for finding a target in a camera image is 0.08 pixels at 2*RMS (or, 2 sigma. This is double the 0.04pixel guideline at 1 sigma, which is a published value for a standard "dot" target)
Therefore, if a picture is taken that is 1m wide x 1m high (a reasonable image size for a 3D scanner):
A 1 Megapixel camera (1000 pixels x 1000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.08mm at 2 sigma
A 4 Megapixel camera (2000 pixels x 2000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.04mm at 2 sigma
A 16 Megapixel camera (4000 pixels x 4000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.02mm at 2 sigma
A 64 Megapixel camera (8000 pixels x 8000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.01mm at 2 sigma
The Z accuracy is then derived by multiplying the X,Y accuracy by 1/(sin(camera angles)). So, for a 3D scanner that has a 30 degree angle between cameras (a reasonable angle for a 3D scanner), the Z accuracy would be the X,Y accuracy divided by sin(30). In the above examples, then, the Z accuracy would be:
0.16mm for the 1 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
0.08mm for the 4 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
0.04mm for the 16 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
0.02mm for the 64 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
The above guidelines show that more pixels results in better accuracy, and that greater angles between cameras results in better accuracy. Photogrammetry systems are more accurate than scanners because, in addition to typically using higher-pixel cameras, there are greater angles involved, and there is also the benefit of collecting additional images, which improves accuracy.
If, upon conducting this test, at a 1meter field of view with the number of pixels above, your 3D scanner is not sitting in the accuracy ranges above at 2 sigma, then something is wrong with the calibration. Accuracy scales linearly with field of view, so for a 0.5m field of view, divide the accuracy numbers above by 2. Adjust accordingly for other fields of view.
A SIDE NOTE: Targets are easier to find than fringes or patterns of projected light. Therefore, the target finding aspect of the 3D scanner will almost always be more accurate than the surface measurement aspect.
More pixels = more accurate
Higher-sensitivity pixels = fewer pixels needed
Larger pixels = more sensitive (i.e. capable of holding more photons)
Faster data transmit rate = more freedom for algorithm development
In 2011, Twin Coast Metrology's primary camera supplier began accepting orders for 29Megapixel cameras. Previously, 16Megapixel cameras were the limit. The 29 Megapixel cameras have similar sensitivities, similar data transmit rates (measured in frames per second), and utilize the same lensing. In other words, the camera industry is progressing. The 29 Megapixel cameras are not drastically more expensive than the 16Megapixel cameras.
In addition, new mid-level cameras were released, which offer high-quality 8Megapixel images at fast transfer rates. These are a lower-cost option, and are suitable for systems that do not require the accuracy that a 16 or 29 Megapixel camera can deliver. The 8Megapixel cameras are not drastically more expensive than the 4Megapixel cameras that were used as Twin Coast Metrology's mid-level cameras.
To recap the relationship between pixels and accuracy, we'll use targets as an example, since almost every high-end 3D scanner has a target-finding capability:
The practical limit for finding a target in a camera image is 0.08 pixels at 2*RMS (or, 2 sigma. This is double the 0.04pixel guideline at 1 sigma, which is a published value for a standard "dot" target)
Therefore, if a picture is taken that is 1m wide x 1m high (a reasonable image size for a 3D scanner):
A 1 Megapixel camera (1000 pixels x 1000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.08mm at 2 sigma
A 4 Megapixel camera (2000 pixels x 2000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.04mm at 2 sigma
A 16 Megapixel camera (4000 pixels x 4000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.02mm at 2 sigma
A 64 Megapixel camera (8000 pixels x 8000 pixels) will locate the target to 0.01mm at 2 sigma
The Z accuracy is then derived by multiplying the X,Y accuracy by 1/(sin(camera angles)). So, for a 3D scanner that has a 30 degree angle between cameras (a reasonable angle for a 3D scanner), the Z accuracy would be the X,Y accuracy divided by sin(30). In the above examples, then, the Z accuracy would be:
0.16mm for the 1 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
0.08mm for the 4 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
0.04mm for the 16 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
0.02mm for the 64 Megapixel camera at 2 sigma
The above guidelines show that more pixels results in better accuracy, and that greater angles between cameras results in better accuracy. Photogrammetry systems are more accurate than scanners because, in addition to typically using higher-pixel cameras, there are greater angles involved, and there is also the benefit of collecting additional images, which improves accuracy.
If, upon conducting this test, at a 1meter field of view with the number of pixels above, your 3D scanner is not sitting in the accuracy ranges above at 2 sigma, then something is wrong with the calibration. Accuracy scales linearly with field of view, so for a 0.5m field of view, divide the accuracy numbers above by 2. Adjust accordingly for other fields of view.
A SIDE NOTE: Targets are easier to find than fringes or patterns of projected light. Therefore, the target finding aspect of the 3D scanner will almost always be more accurate than the surface measurement aspect.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Scanners and Shiny Stuff
Have you heard it? Have you felt it?
...the glaring silence when people talk about scanning a shiny object?
Sometimes the response is to jump quickly to questions of accuracy on parts that AREN'T shiny...
Sometimes the response is to jump quickly to a can of white powder spray...
Sometimes the response is to ignore the topic completely and hope it doesn't appear again...
None of the above responses are particularly flattering for the customer or the 3D metrology company.
We've all seen the data: the glaringly high outliers, the strange reflections in the data, discontinuous data, the lack of data altogether, the high levels of noise, and the incomplete data coverage across the scanner's field of view.
But now it's time to write a rulebook on shiny objects. These are the "laws" that govern the 3D metrology of shiny objects.
Rule 1 - Scanning a shiny object will NEVER be as accurate as scanning a non-shiny one. As a rule of thumb, expect an order of magnitude up to several orders of magnitude of difference. This is because the "feature finding uncertainty" (whether a fringe, line, or pattern) shoots way up due to the specularity of the surface, and diffraction.
Rule 2 - A camera-projector setup that relies on cameras and projectors in fixed locations relative to a moving (non-fixed) part will suffer from severe systemic errors (several orders of magnitude of difference relative to a non-shiny part). Unfortunately, this setup applies to all "head" style scanners on the market -- which represents the vast majority of all 3D scanners. The pathological error in the case of fixed-camera-projector systems is known as multipath -- the phenomenon whereby the projected light reflects from one surface onto another, resulting in a "path" of light that takes "multiple" routes due to reflection.
Rule 3 - Scanning a shiny object MUST take place in a completely dark room/enclosure. The signal-to-noise requirements for shiny parts are much more demanding than non-shiny parts, and therefore complete blackness is necessary.
The 3 rules above necessarily indicate that when scanning shiny objects, a highly-conservative design in terms of accuracy must be employed, the light source must remain fixed with the part (as opposed to fixed with the cameras), and a dark environment must be built. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of 3D scanner that you will find at trade shows, and therefore most customers have never seen a working 3D scanner that can successfully scan shiny objects.
On a side note, some companies have advertised scanners that are "better at shiny objects," but this is generally a marketing angle rather than based on the laws of physics. The kinds of errors caused by shiny surfaces are not well-addressed by the claims of these companies, and by and large, the systems are not successful for high-accuracy work. For high-accuracy work, the 3 rules above must be observed. The reason these companies may advertise these claims is because, at a surface-finish level (i.e. surface porosity and microreflection level), some approaches are superior, however, they are useless for the large, dominant errors associated with shiny surfaces. In other words, solving a small problem does not solve the large one.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The 10-Year 3D Metrology Purchasing Cycle
The world of 3D Metrology capital equipment looks something like this:
Year 1 - 2: a company discovers an opportunity to apply 3D metrology to solve a problem
Year 2-3: the company researches various options, technologies, and solutions, and identifies the "best" one, often through a series of tests and product demonstrations.
Year 3-4: the company requests a budget for the equipment by justifying the Return on Investment (ROI) against the capital cost
Year 4-5: the company receives the budget, and places an order for the equipment. The equipment is delivered within several months, unpacked, set up, and training takes place.
Year 5-6: the company starts using and testing the 3D metrology equipment, and ramps up on its use. They work through issues, perform tests, and start on the path of becoming an "expert" in its use.
THEN, SOMETHING AMAZING HAPPENS (year 6-7) -- either the equipment works, or it doesnt. If it works, then the customer's use of the equipment meets the ROI, and all is good. The company is able to continue its use, and possibly purchase additional systems to further improve productivity. But if it doesn't work or if it "kind of" works (i.e. it doesn't work), then the ROI is not met.
If it doesn't work, then in many cases the technology itself is blamed as "not being ready" or perhaps the project is shifted to a different department, or perhaps the measurement equipment is re-purposed to another task, and the company continues to try to find a new solution (since the original problem has not yet been solved). They go back to Year 1, and the next system is not purchased until several years later. This means that the company does not have an opportunity to solve the problem the 2nd time until 10 years after the original opportunity was identified. Hopefully, this time around they pick the correct technology, or the cycle extends even longer.
But what almost never happens is that if the technology doesn't work, the company asks the 3D metrology company for a refund so they don't have to wait 5 more years for their next budget. We believe this is wrong. We believe that if the 3D metrology equipment does not meet its specification to realize the ROI, then the 3D metrology company should refund the purchase price.
In addition, we are taking additional steps to assist companies in solving their 3D metrology needs the right way, the first time. How are we doing this?
1) By charging the lowest possible price for the equipment, i.e. delivering the highest-perfoming system at the lowest possible price (through innovative system design --there are numerous examples of our approach saving significant money for customers), and therefore improving the ROI multiple, and reducing the size of the budget required for the purchase (and therefore hopefully accelerating the budget cycle); and
2) By GUARANTEEING EVERY SYSTEM WE INSTALL.
Choose wisely.
Year 1 - 2: a company discovers an opportunity to apply 3D metrology to solve a problem
Year 2-3: the company researches various options, technologies, and solutions, and identifies the "best" one, often through a series of tests and product demonstrations.
Year 3-4: the company requests a budget for the equipment by justifying the Return on Investment (ROI) against the capital cost
Year 4-5: the company receives the budget, and places an order for the equipment. The equipment is delivered within several months, unpacked, set up, and training takes place.
Year 5-6: the company starts using and testing the 3D metrology equipment, and ramps up on its use. They work through issues, perform tests, and start on the path of becoming an "expert" in its use.
THEN, SOMETHING AMAZING HAPPENS (year 6-7) -- either the equipment works, or it doesnt. If it works, then the customer's use of the equipment meets the ROI, and all is good. The company is able to continue its use, and possibly purchase additional systems to further improve productivity. But if it doesn't work or if it "kind of" works (i.e. it doesn't work), then the ROI is not met.
If it doesn't work, then in many cases the technology itself is blamed as "not being ready" or perhaps the project is shifted to a different department, or perhaps the measurement equipment is re-purposed to another task, and the company continues to try to find a new solution (since the original problem has not yet been solved). They go back to Year 1, and the next system is not purchased until several years later. This means that the company does not have an opportunity to solve the problem the 2nd time until 10 years after the original opportunity was identified. Hopefully, this time around they pick the correct technology, or the cycle extends even longer.
But what almost never happens is that if the technology doesn't work, the company asks the 3D metrology company for a refund so they don't have to wait 5 more years for their next budget. We believe this is wrong. We believe that if the 3D metrology equipment does not meet its specification to realize the ROI, then the 3D metrology company should refund the purchase price.
In addition, we are taking additional steps to assist companies in solving their 3D metrology needs the right way, the first time. How are we doing this?
1) By charging the lowest possible price for the equipment, i.e. delivering the highest-perfoming system at the lowest possible price (through innovative system design --there are numerous examples of our approach saving significant money for customers), and therefore improving the ROI multiple, and reducing the size of the budget required for the purchase (and therefore hopefully accelerating the budget cycle); and
2) By GUARANTEEING EVERY SYSTEM WE INSTALL.
Choose wisely.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Cameras Are Computers, Too
10 years ago, it was a big deal to transfer a camera image into a computer quickly, reliably, and at high-resolution. Firewire and Camera Link were the primary options, and the camera imaging chips were fairly low-resolution and also expensive. Most industrial cameras on the market maxed out at 1.3 or perhaps 4 megapixels.
But, since then, new data transmission protocols (GigE) have come about, and cameras have seen higher resolutions (16 megapixels, 29 megapixels, and 50 megapixels). In addition, the clocks on these cameras have allowed for faster dumpdown rates.
As the high-end of the technology has progressed, the products that were very expensive before have come way down in price.
Why is this? Because cameras are semiconductor devices, too. Their imaging sensors are manufactured using a semiconductor process, and their clocks and network boards sit squarely in the realm of computing. They are, in fact, a product of Moore's Law.
This is why, as cameras continue to develop, we will see an incredible new horizon for optical 3D metrology. Measurements that were not possible before will become commonplace through new advancements, as many of them are becoming today. Speed, accuracy, cost, and stability will continue to improve, just as it has.
As cameras have benefitted from Moore's Law, so, too, have computers. We all know this: the computationally-intensive image processing algorithms that were too slow or unstable to rely upon many years ago can now be processed with ease.
But there is a less-obvious side to this computational benefit: the world of Computer Science has invested much research into better/faster/more efficient ways to handle the types of computation used in image processing, 3D reconstruction, and optimization. In other words, the processor speed is only a part of the benefit. The other side of the coin is that there are now new 3D reconstruction and optimization "engines" that were not published in the research space many years ago. These computational breakthroughs further support marked progress.
In summary, the future for optical 3D metrology is bright. We are just getting started. What was not possible 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or even 1 year ago may be possible today by virtue of more pixels, better camera electronics, faster/more stable data transfer rates, improved algorithm "engines," and faster computer processors.
Very exciting!
But, since then, new data transmission protocols (GigE) have come about, and cameras have seen higher resolutions (16 megapixels, 29 megapixels, and 50 megapixels). In addition, the clocks on these cameras have allowed for faster dumpdown rates.
As the high-end of the technology has progressed, the products that were very expensive before have come way down in price.
Why is this? Because cameras are semiconductor devices, too. Their imaging sensors are manufactured using a semiconductor process, and their clocks and network boards sit squarely in the realm of computing. They are, in fact, a product of Moore's Law.
This is why, as cameras continue to develop, we will see an incredible new horizon for optical 3D metrology. Measurements that were not possible before will become commonplace through new advancements, as many of them are becoming today. Speed, accuracy, cost, and stability will continue to improve, just as it has.
As cameras have benefitted from Moore's Law, so, too, have computers. We all know this: the computationally-intensive image processing algorithms that were too slow or unstable to rely upon many years ago can now be processed with ease.
But there is a less-obvious side to this computational benefit: the world of Computer Science has invested much research into better/faster/more efficient ways to handle the types of computation used in image processing, 3D reconstruction, and optimization. In other words, the processor speed is only a part of the benefit. The other side of the coin is that there are now new 3D reconstruction and optimization "engines" that were not published in the research space many years ago. These computational breakthroughs further support marked progress.
In summary, the future for optical 3D metrology is bright. We are just getting started. What was not possible 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or even 1 year ago may be possible today by virtue of more pixels, better camera electronics, faster/more stable data transfer rates, improved algorithm "engines," and faster computer processors.
Very exciting!
Friday, August 12, 2011
Why 3D Metrology Systems are like Cars
Those familiar with optical metrology systems are aware that there are "high-end" "mid-level," and "economy" price/performance choices. Many of them share common traits: portability, some statement of accuracy, some visibility in the marketplace, some sort of marketing statement, and a nice-looking package. They are the "general-purpose" products that, in general, make the 3D metrology world go 'round. They are also similar enough to each other that they often compete with each other into a common market, differentiated on levels of marginal performance, marginal price, or packaging. They are, in effect, the "passenger cars" of the 3D metrology industry. They help the masses of people get from point A to point B using well-established workflows, business models, and sales channels.
HOWEVER, there is a category of 3D metrology systems that don't look at all like the mass-marketed systems. They are the "trucks, race cars, amphibious vehicles, tractors, go-carts, motorcycles, busses, and off-roaders." They are purpose-built, high-performance, highly-customized, and highly-effective at performing under the conditions they are designed for. This is where we prefer to focus our efforts.
This customized, focused effort relies on hand-picked or custom-engineered hardware, and custom-engineered software, algorithms, and Graphical User Interfaces. Each of our products may have 1 to a few dozen customers -- not the 1000s that most 3D metrology companies expect.
For example, a 3D scanner with a 20-foot field of view? No sweat. 100-foot field of view? No problem. Measuring a shiny part? No biggie. Measuring the head of a pin? Not an issue. 30-second cycle time for 100% inspection of parts with hundreds of dimensions? Can do. Crack propogation? Yes. Razor-thin blades? Of course.
Of course, don't expect these highly-specialized products to look anything like what you might find at a trade show. Some of our 3D measurement devices are drilled into concrete and weight 6,000 lbs., filled with sand. Some of them are bolted onto factory structural beams. Some of them sit inside robotic enclosures. They do not look at all like what you expect from a "passenger car" 3D scanner. Many of them are ugly to look at (and therefore beautiful). Many of them are industrial (and therefore functional). Many of them are immovable (and therefore accurate/stable). And, some of them look exactly like a 3D scanner you are used to, but the software is worlds apart.
From a software perspective, some of them don't have a Graphical User Interface -- they are run from a command line, and then close down when the measurements are finished. Some of the GUIs have only one button (Start). Some of the GUIs are exceedingly sophisticated, but designed for an exact task or workflow.
The algorithms, too, are customized. They are set up to find the exact features they are programmed for, and therefore optimal. The 3D reconstruction is designed to output ONLY the 3D data required for that task, and nothing else. The reporting is tied in to each customer's site-specific database.
Large deployments of software/hardware are managed from a central database, and multi-site installations of new software updates take place on all workstations from a centralized location. The software works within each customer's Information Technology security environments.
Some customers need passenger cars, while some customers need something very different. We exist to serve those that need something different. Every system installed is GUARANTEED to work in each customer's environment for its intended task. This means cycle time, accuracy, ease of use, and budget.
HOWEVER, there is a category of 3D metrology systems that don't look at all like the mass-marketed systems. They are the "trucks, race cars, amphibious vehicles, tractors, go-carts, motorcycles, busses, and off-roaders." They are purpose-built, high-performance, highly-customized, and highly-effective at performing under the conditions they are designed for. This is where we prefer to focus our efforts.
This customized, focused effort relies on hand-picked or custom-engineered hardware, and custom-engineered software, algorithms, and Graphical User Interfaces. Each of our products may have 1 to a few dozen customers -- not the 1000s that most 3D metrology companies expect.
For example, a 3D scanner with a 20-foot field of view? No sweat. 100-foot field of view? No problem. Measuring a shiny part? No biggie. Measuring the head of a pin? Not an issue. 30-second cycle time for 100% inspection of parts with hundreds of dimensions? Can do. Crack propogation? Yes. Razor-thin blades? Of course.
Of course, don't expect these highly-specialized products to look anything like what you might find at a trade show. Some of our 3D measurement devices are drilled into concrete and weight 6,000 lbs., filled with sand. Some of them are bolted onto factory structural beams. Some of them sit inside robotic enclosures. They do not look at all like what you expect from a "passenger car" 3D scanner. Many of them are ugly to look at (and therefore beautiful). Many of them are industrial (and therefore functional). Many of them are immovable (and therefore accurate/stable). And, some of them look exactly like a 3D scanner you are used to, but the software is worlds apart.
From a software perspective, some of them don't have a Graphical User Interface -- they are run from a command line, and then close down when the measurements are finished. Some of the GUIs have only one button (Start). Some of the GUIs are exceedingly sophisticated, but designed for an exact task or workflow.
The algorithms, too, are customized. They are set up to find the exact features they are programmed for, and therefore optimal. The 3D reconstruction is designed to output ONLY the 3D data required for that task, and nothing else. The reporting is tied in to each customer's site-specific database.
Large deployments of software/hardware are managed from a central database, and multi-site installations of new software updates take place on all workstations from a centralized location. The software works within each customer's Information Technology security environments.
Some customers need passenger cars, while some customers need something very different. We exist to serve those that need something different. Every system installed is GUARANTEED to work in each customer's environment for its intended task. This means cycle time, accuracy, ease of use, and budget.
Friday, June 3, 2011
3D Metrology Companies' Conduct Covers Customers
EDIT: After re-reading this post several times, we have reached the conclusion that it is, perhaps a bit negative/antagonistic and therefore boring. However, we still believe it is newsworthy, and therefore we are leaving it up. The purpose of this blog is to shed light on the 3D metrology industry at large, and therefore hopefully spark thought, debate, or criticism.
3D Metrology companies are a strange lot. They work closely with the world's leading manufacturers, in high-technology environments, and often have access to proprietary information regarding defective parts, R&D cycles, blueprints, etc. Large manufacturing companies have safeguards in place to ensure that the 3D metrology companies don't get too close to their "secret sauce," but the fact is that even a little bit of information is dangerous.
...which is why we're constantly surprised at the number of 3D metrology companies that publish their customers' "case studies," and "applications notes," and "problems solved." As if the 3D metrology company rode in on a white horse, solved the company's multi-million dollar problem all by themselves, and then shared their resounding success with the world.
It doesn't quite work that way.
Even stranger, still, is when we see a slew of corporate logos published across the 3D metrology company's "Customers" web page. In most cases, it looks like they right-clicked on the customer's website, and clicked on "Save Target As..." and pasted the image directly onto their own website. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think that this multibillion dollar brand, this corporate giant, this Fortune 1000 conglomerate, this icon, pillar, and symbol of the world's manufacturing prowess gave permission to paste their Trademarked corporate logo on a puny 3D metrology company's website? As if, somehow they're "partners" in their quest?
A cursory check of various companies' "reprint permissions" page on their website shows that some companies allow logo utilization, whereas others don't.
An interesting excercise would be to find the companies that don't allow reprints, and to ask the 3D metrology company for proof, from the conglomerate's legal department, that they have permission to use their customer's logo.
There are laws that protect against this sort of stuff. They're called Copyright and Trademark laws.
Which poses the question -- if a 3D metrology company is pasting a customer company's logo without permission in plain view, what are they doing behind closed doors?
Beyond the company logo, there are often "case studies," which show, in plain view, "problems" that the large manufacturing company had in one of their products. As if it's the 3D metrology company's job to show the world the "problems" they found -- again, proudly displayed on their website (funny that the large 3D manufacturing companies don't show these "case studies" on their websites...). These are also sometimes displayed as "Sample Images" on the 3D metrology metrology company's website.
In conclusion, although this blog post has little to do with the science of 3D metrology, it does attempt to bring out an important point - the 3D metrology industry, in addition to science, is also an industry of conduct.
To be fair, in many cases, the 3D metrology companies actually do receive permission -- but those aren't the ones that matter -- the ones that matter are when the 3D metrology companies don't receive permission.
How is your 3D metrology supplier conducting themselves? You have a right to find out, check them out, and ask them to justify their every action. After all, they're close to your products -- and therefore you have a right to be close to theirs.
We sincerely hope this post is simply a puff of hot air, and everyone in the 3D metrology industry is conducting themselves as a perfect angel. But, it's up to you, the customer, to decide.
3D Metrology companies are a strange lot. They work closely with the world's leading manufacturers, in high-technology environments, and often have access to proprietary information regarding defective parts, R&D cycles, blueprints, etc. Large manufacturing companies have safeguards in place to ensure that the 3D metrology companies don't get too close to their "secret sauce," but the fact is that even a little bit of information is dangerous.
...which is why we're constantly surprised at the number of 3D metrology companies that publish their customers' "case studies," and "applications notes," and "problems solved." As if the 3D metrology company rode in on a white horse, solved the company's multi-million dollar problem all by themselves, and then shared their resounding success with the world.
It doesn't quite work that way.
Even stranger, still, is when we see a slew of corporate logos published across the 3D metrology company's "Customers" web page. In most cases, it looks like they right-clicked on the customer's website, and clicked on "Save Target As..." and pasted the image directly onto their own website. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think that this multibillion dollar brand, this corporate giant, this Fortune 1000 conglomerate, this icon, pillar, and symbol of the world's manufacturing prowess gave permission to paste their Trademarked corporate logo on a puny 3D metrology company's website? As if, somehow they're "partners" in their quest?
A cursory check of various companies' "reprint permissions" page on their website shows that some companies allow logo utilization, whereas others don't.
An interesting excercise would be to find the companies that don't allow reprints, and to ask the 3D metrology company for proof, from the conglomerate's legal department, that they have permission to use their customer's logo.
There are laws that protect against this sort of stuff. They're called Copyright and Trademark laws.
Which poses the question -- if a 3D metrology company is pasting a customer company's logo without permission in plain view, what are they doing behind closed doors?
Beyond the company logo, there are often "case studies," which show, in plain view, "problems" that the large manufacturing company had in one of their products. As if it's the 3D metrology company's job to show the world the "problems" they found -- again, proudly displayed on their website (funny that the large 3D manufacturing companies don't show these "case studies" on their websites...). These are also sometimes displayed as "Sample Images" on the 3D metrology metrology company's website.
In conclusion, although this blog post has little to do with the science of 3D metrology, it does attempt to bring out an important point - the 3D metrology industry, in addition to science, is also an industry of conduct.
To be fair, in many cases, the 3D metrology companies actually do receive permission -- but those aren't the ones that matter -- the ones that matter are when the 3D metrology companies don't receive permission.
How is your 3D metrology supplier conducting themselves? You have a right to find out, check them out, and ask them to justify their every action. After all, they're close to your products -- and therefore you have a right to be close to theirs.
We sincerely hope this post is simply a puff of hot air, and everyone in the 3D metrology industry is conducting themselves as a perfect angel. But, it's up to you, the customer, to decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)