Dose R200 is more suitable for measurement than F200 and SR300?

[linhuan_h_]

Hello, every realsense developers.

I want to measure an object, does R200 better? I have a F200 and a SR300, if R200 is better, I will buy a R200.

And I hear that R200 will keep updating and SR300 will not. Is that true?

In addition, Could you please tell me about how R200 works with two IR cameras, and it also uses structured light?

Any suggestions would be appreciated!

[jb455]

It depends on what you want to measure. If it's big things at a range of 0.5-3m then the R200 is more suitable. If you're more interested in smaller things at a closer range (0.3-1.5m) the F200 or SR300 will be better.

For smallish objects/features (say 5-200mm) at a range of around 0.5m with the same lighting, the accuracy is about the same (sub-millimetre) between the two classes of cameras.

Another thing is that the official measurement methods currently only work on the R200, so if you want to measure on the front cameras you'll have to roll your own (not too difficult, but may take some time).

I'm not sure about the update situation. I did hear a while ago that a replacement for the R200 (like the SR300 is for the F200) was in the works but I haven't heard any updates on that for some time. 

As for how it works, check out this thread: https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/realsense/topic/667781

[linhuan_h_]

James B. wrote:

It depends on what you want to measure. If it's big things at a range of 0.5-3m then the R200 is more suitable. If you're more interested in smaller things at a closer range (0.3-1.5m) the F200 or SR300 will be better.

For smallish objects/features (say 5-200mm) at a range of around 0.5m with the same lighting, the accuracy is about the same (sub-millimetre) between the two classes of cameras.

Another thing is that the official measurement methods currently only work on the R200, so if you want to measure on the front cameras you'll have to roll your own (not too difficult, but may take some time).

I'm not sure about the update situation. I did hear a while ago that a replacement for the R200 (like the SR300 is for the F200) was in the works but I haven't heard any updates on that for some time. 

As for how it works, check out this thread: https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/realsense/topic/667781

Thank you, James. Your answer is really helpful.

I'm trying to get the volume of a rectangle or something similar (the size is limited in 50cmx35cmx10cm). But I just have a F200 and a SR300, and I transformed the pixel coordinates to camera coordinates by means of the latest SDK projection module functions, and computing the Euclidean distance between two points. Sometimes it works well, while sometimes not. Because there are samples that using R200 to measure the distance, need I buy a R200?

[jb455]

I've developed measurement methods similar to you. The R200 does support built-in measurement functions, but I haven't found them to be any better than using the way you described. If 50*35*10 is the biggest thing you'll want to measure, you'll probably be fine with the front cameras. It's only if you want to measure much bigger things that you may get out of the range of the front cameras and have to use a rear, but probably still using the method you described rather than the built-in functions.

[linhuan_h_]

James B. wrote:

I've developed measurement methods similar to you. The R200 does support built-in measurement functions, but I haven't found them to be any better than using the way you described. If 50*35*10 is the biggest thing you'll want to measure, you'll probably be fine with the front cameras. It's only if you want to measure much bigger things that you may get out of the range of the front cameras and have to use a rear, but probably still using the method you described rather than the built-in functions.

Thank you very much, James. With your answer, I have a better understanding of using the realsense 3D cameras to measure objects. And I am also confused about the performance of 3D scanning  between front cameras (SR300, F200) and rear camera (R200). Because R200 using stereo vision system, and front cameras are not. Dose this mean R200 is more suitable for 3D scanning?

[mugabi__samuel]

Yes; R200 is a better option for 3D Scanning

[linhuan_h_]

samuel m. wrote:

Yes; R200 is a better option for 3D Scanning

Thanks. Dose the reason is the stereo vision system and the large imaging range and the same imaging accuracy?