Microscope imaging software by Leica Microsystems merges microscopes, digital cameras and accessories into one fully integrated solution. One common, easy-to-use, and workflow-oriented interface provides real-time, high-resolution imaging together with faster routine and research analysis while allowing manual operation. There are different strategies to acquire and merge tile scan experiments at the Leica microscopes using the Navigator tool: Option 1 (Recommended): Acquire and merge during acquisition at the microscope. Leica Microsystems is to acquire artificial intelligence-enabled microscopy platform, Aivia, from Svision LLC, US, for an undisclosed sum. Based on a wide range of machine learning and deep learning algorithms, the visualization, analysis, and interpretation software solution is designed to help users gain meaningful insights from microscope imaging data. Downloads Brochures, firmware, technical data, instructions, images and more. Building Link for Autodesk Revit and Infrastructure Link for AutoCAD Civil 3D are free to use software plugins.The Link plugins provide the ability to easily and quickly add and extract digital stake-out data in the form of points, lines, surfaces and alignments from 3D models.
I’ve had a terrific opportunity over the past few weeks experiencing another workflow in scanning. I have been scanning now for 7 years, and I know the Leica through and through. But now using a FARO to do some plant scanning and I feel I’ve got some great other perspectives on how others may be scanning and how each model shines in a particular manner. I'm trying to write without a bias, honestly. Office x for mac.
For the purpose of this article I’ll be comparing FARO (350) and Leica (P40). I know there are other brands out there, maybe if Rigel, Trimble or Topcon want to loan me a unit for a few weeks I’d be happy to test drive it.
I haven’t had any experience with FARO’s scene software so I’m going to stick mostly to the field aspect of the evaluation, however knowing how it all comes together back in the office gives field personnel a better understanding of good procedures.
1. Size
I must admit one real drawback of the Leica is that it’s a beast. It comes in a huge box, and it is heavy. Really on the low side of portability, I don’t think you can even take it carry on a plane unless you have some other sort of backpack or softshell case (anyone know of one?).
(Leica 12 kg / FARO 4 kg)
I once travelled on a plane with a Leica and watched as the baggage handler from a major airline try to see how far he could throw everyone's luggage onto the conveyor belt. Honestly since then I think I’ll take extra insurance out if I ever must check a scanner to go under the plane.
The FARO is super easy to cart around, crawl up scaffolding, take on a plane etc. When I had to crawl all around pipes and up scaffolding I was glad to have the FARO.
2. Onboard software
The Leica and the FARO onboard software are pretty easy to understand and utilize. Adobe premiere pro for mac crack.
FARO has a nice option to do scans of jobs under parent projects to help manage the data. But all you really get to do with the scanner is scan, there’s no option to tie targets and know that if you must have that target acquired that you know you do before you leave the field.
The Leica generally seems to have much more options in customising scan details, windows quality and range.
3. Data storage
(what are those black squares, and why are they hole punched?) ------------------>
The Leica has onboard storage, the FARO has an SD card.
Loving the SD storage.
It is kind of a hassle to download to a USB stick or transfer via the Ethernet cable after getting used to just popping an SD card out the side. Just saying.
4. Speed and Photos
Both the Leica and the FARO boast 1 million points per second scanning, but in practice the Leica seems to scan at a much faster rate. When it comes to scanning, speed is everything. Every field practice than can shave off seconds here and there can produce significant gains.
One option is to do the scan and then the pictures with another camera other than the onboard one. Such as with an iStar camera. Using an iStar in the past has made for some incredibly fast setups, almost too fast. When you can scan in 3 min and take pictures in 90 seconds and leapfrog the setups you are constantly moving, it’s quite amazing how many scans you get done with that system.
From what I understand both FARO and Leica can use a 3rd party camera like the iStar.
If there was some way to take pictures while scanning and just reduce the whole process down to a 3(ish) minute cycle (depending on scan preferences) that would be a clear win for either brand. I’m surprised that Leica hasn’t done this by now with their optics being the best of the best. Trueview for mac.
5. Batteries
FARO - 2 batteries, will last pretty much all day (8 hr shift) but requires the scanner off when replacing.
Leica - 4 batteries (2 at a time), will easily last all day (12 hrs shift) and is hot swappable so you can replace as needed on the fly.
6. Scanning around a site
The Leica has a clear advantage in this respect. The FARO relies on triangulating all their setups based on targets, which can be quite awkward. I can think of several times when I would have preferred to use the Leica and backsight a target and traverse to another, maybe use some additional targets for increased constraints.
The FARO has to rely on a minimum of 3 targets at all times which has proven to be challenging, especially in tight areas.
Leica Acquire
The user of a Leica needs to think like a surveyor. Traverse points, target and traverse geometry, overlap, redundancy…. essentially someone who is constantly trying to mitigate errors. The Leica requires a sturdy survey tripod, has a laser plummet, and a dot on the side to get an accurate height measurement above a control point.
You can put a FARO on a tribrach and use a survey tripod but it seems that the tripod of choice is a good SLR camera tripod. Nice when carting it around, less then desirable when the scanner needs to be absolutely still (which is always). From what I can tell there is no clear way to get a height of the scanner above a control point. (there must be some accessory for this?)
The user of a FARO is not immune to systematic and random error, but it’s more difficult to control when you simply turn it on and do a scan.
7. Extras
One thing about Leica is that everything is al-a-carte, which is a blessing and a curse. If you want something, you pay for it. If you don’t want some particular accessory or option then don’t pay for it.
One thing that I really have enjoyed about the FARO is the lights showing the status, red for scanning, blue for pictures, orange for error. This has come in particularly handy when running around doing other things while scanning.
8. Remote Control
Both scanners have an option to be remotely controlled. This is a particular advantage when setting up on an awkward position or if the scanner is inaccessible when being used. Connecting is fairly straight forward with either an internet browser or remote desktop connection on a computer, tablet or smartphone.
9. Data
Here’s where it’s a bit tough to compare since I haven’t had much experience with the FARO scene software. But here’s my experience so far.
It seems like I can’t definitely know that my scans are all ok when using the FARO before leaving the site, there has a been a couple instances now where a re-scan was required because a unified point cloud couldn’t be achieved. This is mostly frustrating because I know using the Leica would have been fine. There were no warnings on the unit, since I wasn’t using the traditional tripod/tribach system I couldn’t verify if it has moved and leaving some sort of permanent control has been difficult. (which is not necessarily an issue with the FARO and maybe more with the methodology of field survey).
With the Leica, I can acquire targets in the field if I’m unsure about if they will be captured in the scan and I can verify if the acquisition is acceptable or not. This can have enormous repercussions, especially when you have to travel a far distance to site.
When I ask other surveyors about their opinion on the FARO vs Leica the answer is always, “Leica data is always better, but the FARO is less expensive/smaller”.
I’ve never really had an issue with data coming from a Leica that was a result of the unit underperforming.
Conclusion.
I do have one thing to say to Leica which I hope someone in R&D will read and take to heart. From what I’m told, the FARO does a way better job on photo acquisition. Which is really surprising because Leica is the apex in quality for optical excellence. The focus of Leica is data, understandable. But don’t forget pictures go a long way in selling the client on scanning, and you can’t use the scanner when you don’t have projects.
So what can I say? The FARO is easy to use but frankly seems to be less reliable. The Leica is more dependable but feels like a bull in a china shop at times.
Leica is all about the data, FARO is more user-centric.
I've tried to be unbiased, but really it all comes down to where would I put my money?What’s Leica’s moto? “When it has to be right”, so then I should ask “when does it not have to be right?” Hopefully we can all agree on the answer.
Leica Acquire Download
I guess it depends on what you need.