3d Printers

Halk · Post by **Halk** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:35 am

Hi All,

I have been a member here for quite a while, but am yet to respond to many posts.

I find some of the work done here just amazing.

Anyway moving onto my question.

I have been looking at some 3D printers. The cheapest printer I have found is this one from the bay of evil
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/181075082262 ... 1423.l2649

I have been trying to find some reviews, of either this type or the maker bot, so does anybody out there have any advice or reviews.

Johnnycrash · Post by **Johnnycrash** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:18 am

Don't waste your time or money on any of these "home" 3D printer systems. They are cheap for a reason. They will not produce ANYTHING even remotely useful for scale modeling (if that's your goal).

Unless you have $100,000.00+ (some I have seen for as little $60K, but then by the time you add in the accessories you need... $100K again).

Just save up, and farm it out to the hundreds of 3D printing houses out there.

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Mon May 06, 2013 4:47 pm

I'm so excited for this tech to develop. Someday we will be able to throw an image into the printer, specify the size, and press print...and bam we can get a 3d copy.

Imagine being able to 3D print pieces to build a studio scale Enterprise D. Someday...looking forward to that.

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon May 06, 2013 5:13 pm

Halk wrote:I have been trying to find some reviews, of either this type or the maker bot, so does anybody out there have any advice or reviews.

First off, what do you want it for?

Next, what do you expect it to do?

It might be of some use, depending upon what your expectations are. Especially if they are low.

Someday we will be able to throw an image into the printer, specify the size, and press print...and bam we can get a 3d copy.

Well, that's never going to happen because a 2D image doesn't have the 3D information needed to make a 3D part. It simply doesn't. Now, if the image is keyed to a 3D file, that's something different...

Paul

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Mon May 06, 2013 7:26 pm

Never say never...especially with future tech coming in the next 20 years

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon May 06, 2013 7:41 pm

josdiaz wrote:Never say never...especially with future tech coming in the next 20 years

It has nothing to do with technology. A 2D image can not have the information necessary to create a 3D image, if it did, it would be a 3D image.

The same way a true greyscale image can never be turned into a true colour photo. The grey image simply does not carry the information needed to establish the true colours.

Paul

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:17 pm

Why couldn't future printer take a 2d image and extrapolate it into a 3d version then print that? WHY I ASK YOU!!!

Johnnycrash · Post by **Johnnycrash** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:34 pm

josdiaz wrote:Why couldn't future printer take a 2d image and extrapolate it into a 3d version then print that? WHY I ASK YOU!!!

Because the data to do so does not exist in the 2d photo. That's why it's a 2D photo.

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:37 pm

But why can't a future computer take the 2d image and turn it into a 3d image? How do we know a computer 20 or 30 years from now can't do that?

Alvis 3.1 · Post by **Alvis 3.1** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:41 pm

Cuz it's missing a D.

Alvis 3.1

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:41 pm

josdiaz wrote:Why couldn't future printer take a 2d image and extrapolate it into a 3d version then print that? WHY I ASK YOU!!!

If you'll calm down I'll tell you...

The 2D image does not have depth information in it. It also has no information on the other side of the object in the image of parts of the object not captured in the image. The human brain does a wonderful job interpolating information from an image coupled with other things we already know. We still can't know about parts of an image we can't actually see, but we think we know it and, if we know the subject well, we are usually correct.

But the information contained in any single 2D image simple does not extend to those parts of thde object not actually in the image. Now, as I said, if the 2D image is tied via a "smart" computer system to 3D models of the subject, then showing the printer an image of a, say, Starfury, would allow the computer to say, "hey, he wants a Starfury model" and go pick the Starfury 3D file from storage and print that. But that's not the same as shoving a 2D image into the printer and having it print exactly that object from the image without referencing a previously stored file. The totality of the 3D object data is just not contained in the 2D image.

Now, a super duper intelligent computer could see a 2D image of, say, a chair and print you a model of that chair with all the visible characteristics of the chair in the image, but it would never know that you, as a 5 year old, carved your name in the far side of that chair because the information that defines that carved name is not in the image taken from the opposiite side.

Does that make sense?

Paul

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:50 pm

josdiaz wrote:But why can't a future computer take the 2d image and turn it into a 3d image? How do we know a computer 20 or 30 years from now can't do that?

Because the information does not exist for any computer to do anything with. If the information is not there a computer would have to invent it (also known as interpolating) and the "smarter" the computer or person is, the better the guesses and invention are, but you still can't _know_ information that isn't there.

Paul

Joseph Osborn · Post by **Joseph Osborn** » Mon May 06, 2013 8:55 pm

It is true a single 2D image does not contain enough information to create a 3D model. But take an array of several 2D images of an object from different angles and you can turn that data into a 3D model.

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon May 06, 2013 9:03 pm

True, however, for complicated objects, the number of images needed to capture something like, for instance, the details of an afterburner exhaust can and it's actuators, would require a lot of images, all with some way to reference each other to provide accurate distance information. But it _is_ possible because with enough images, you can capture the appropriate amount of information.

But not with just one 2D image.

Paul

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Mon May 06, 2013 10:13 pm

Right but i wasn't talking about engine exhaust or initials scribed on the back of a chair.....for a picture of a Star Trek ship....2d....it's not inconceivable that a future computer/printer could take a few 2d images from pictures of an old 1988 amt enterprise d kit and 3d print pieces of said model. Especially if I have images of the plastic pieces of the kit.

So in the year 2030 when I'm 47 and I have a 3d printer I can send the image/images to printer and print out the pieces sized to the scale I want

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Mon May 06, 2013 10:19 pm

Double post

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon May 06, 2013 10:47 pm

josdiaz wrote:Right but i wasn't talking about engine exhaust or initials scribed on the back of a chair.....for a picture of a Star Trek ship....2d....it's not inconceivable that a future computer/printer could take a few 2d images from pictures of an old 1988 amt enterprise d kit and 3d print pieces of said model. Especially if I have images of the plastic pieces of the kit.

So in the year 2030 when I'm 47 and I have a 3d printer I can send the image/images to printer and print out the pieces sized to the scale I want

First of all, you said:

Someday we will be able to throw an image into the printer

If you had specified multiple images then I would have told you that if you were willing to rig them correctly and take enough photos, you could do it today. There is image interpretation and measurement software available today that can create a 3D model from enough 2D images. It is limited in what it can do, but it's there. Of course, if we are talking the future and you are permitting the person to make preparations to ensure getting accurate parts to make a kit, then images would not be the way to go. You'd have a small portable 3D scanner that would create the 3D file directly; a technology that is also available today.

Of course you have to realise that to capture the proper data from something that seems as simple as an AMT Enterprise, is actually a very complex. You don't just want the parts to be approximately the right size, they need to be exactly the right size so that they fit together and precision and accuracy are expensive.

Still, as long as the information can be gathered using either 3D scans or sufficient 2D images then you can do it all today, so you will definitely be able to do it better & cheaper "in the land of tomorrow!"

Paul

TazMan2000 · Post by **TazMan2000** » Tue May 07, 2013 12:16 am

I have followed this technology for years. I'm excited at the recent news and advancements in technology. There are several different ways of printing now, and much like the old battles of VHS versus Beta, and more recently HDDVD versus Blue-Ray, eventually the 3D technology for home printers will congeal into one type of technology and it will become the standard.
Will this become a passing fancy? Perhaps. How many people would find this technology useful in the home, other than hobbyists? Perhaps children can make their own toys, but do you think that they will?

TazMan2000

eeun · Post by **eeun** » Tue May 07, 2013 11:01 am

josdiaz wrote:....it's not inconceivable that a future computer/printer could take a few 2d images from pictures of an old 1988 amt enterprise d kit and 3d print pieces of said model. Especially if I have images of the plastic pieces of the kit.

Good luck in 2030 of getting those copyrighted 2D images past your printer's built-in DRM.

josdiaz · Post by **josdiaz** » Tue May 07, 2013 1:41 pm

I'll just jail brake it

BruceKW · Post by **BruceKW** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:23 pm

I have a Makerbot Replicator 2 3D printer. They can be quite handy if you scratch build or model something that is not already commercially available.
I chose the MakerBot Replicator 2 because at the time it had a bigger build platform. It was fairly expensive $2199.99 or there about. The technology is still developing for the hobbyists and just about every few weeks there is a new one out on the market. Most use ABS or PLA plastic filament. I use PLA as it does not warp or peel as bad as ABS, ABS requires a heated build platform where PLA does not however from trial and error I found that regular model glue does not "bond" PLA very well but walthers GOO works great and just a little goes a long way. My main hobby is trains but also like to collect sci-fi kits I have a bunch waiting to get a turn on the build bench.
Trains lead me into casting and molding and then to 3D printing. I printed off a B5 star fury just recently.
http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/download ... p?id=20812

As a production tool desktop 3D printers currently just do not cut the mustard but as a prototyping tool they are fairly good.

BruceKW · Post by **BruceKW** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:14 am

well that did not work.

May have to start using photo bucket.

Stu Pidasso · Post by **Stu Pidasso** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:42 pm

Doesn't the XBox Kinect have something like a 2D scanner that it turns into a 3D picture?

EDIT: Found one...

Kylwell · Post by **Kylwell** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:39 pm

PLA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid which is why regular hobby glues dinna work.

There is, just as a note, software that can take multiple images of an object and extrapolate it into 3D. More angles, better the extrapolation. Typically if it's just a single image, and the lens is unknown, the extrapolation has to be done by hand. The computer will but it'll much, much more information from a person willing to make a value judgement.

Migmaker · Post by **Migmaker** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:11 pm

or maybe the technology is there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oie1ZXWceqM

eeun · Post by **eeun** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:34 am

That's impressive. I don't know what you'd call that. Assisted 3D modeling? 3D tracing? Semi-automated dimensional extrapolation?

It's still requiring a person to input the z-axis information, and limited to symmetrical objects, but nevertheless neat.

Glorfindel · Post by **Glorfindel** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:16 pm

So much for a 2D image not having the info for 3D. Clearly didn't have to wait 20 -30 years for that tech. 3 more yeas and they'll perfect that stuff. What is it Dr. Malcom said, oh' yeah, "Life will find a way."

Johnnycrash · Post by **Johnnycrash** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:23 pm

Glorfindel wrote:So much for a 2D image not having the info for 3D.

2D images DON'T have 3D info. That are SIMPLE objects that we know their shape (in general). The images didn't supply the info, the USER did. So...

I can give you 100 "simple" looking 2D images that you will NEVER EVER get right in 3D. Candlesticks and coffee tables. Oooh! That's real impressive.

Tankmodeler · Post by **Tankmodeler** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:17 pm

Johnnycrash wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:So much for a 2D image not having the info for 3D.
2D images DON'T have 3D info. That are SIMPLE objects that we know their shape (in general). The images didn't supply the info, the USER did. So...

Exactly! The user is making the initial call that the shape is round or square or whatever. Once you establish the fundamental shape and declare the axis, the software is still handy and neat to do the rest, but it definitely does _not_ have the inherant information in the 2D image. The human mind's intelligence is the key factor in getting from 2D to 3D, but then again, your mind already does that looking at every 2D image, doesn't it?

And, as we all know, sometimes the 2D image will fool even the human looking at it. The software will not help you then.

I'm not saying it's not impressive, because it is, but the software is not pulling 3D info out of 2D, you are.

Paul

Blappy · Post by **Blappy** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:04 am

Once have 3D cameras that can take a holographic image you might be able to have the printer make a part from that.

Starship Modeler Discussion Forums

3d Printers

3d Printers

Re: 3d Printers

3D printers as a modeling tool

A better link to B5 pic of a Star fury model