…they're repeatedly dipping it, and using the volume displacement to reconstruct the shape. Amazing. The site is hammered right now so I can't get more details: anyone see how many dips are required to get the highest-detail models they show on the landing page?
That being said, they still make efforts. When I was in grad school, I was routinely asked to do voice overs for videos that accompanied paper submissions by students who had strong accents when speaking English.
Public speaking is a skill. It takes work and practice. Most tech folks have neither the time nor desire to do so.
The good ones snarf ideas from other good presenters when they see something useful.
A lot of bad ones imitate other presentations as the "minimum standard" because creating a good speech takes a LOT of work.
I'm also going to point out that a lot of tech speakers aren't native speakers of English. If you made me, a native English speaker, give a presentation in French or Chinese, I'm guaranteed to be a bad speaker.
They're dipping this thing into liquid multiple times in different ways and then measuring how much the volume has changed from the initial touch of the liquid to the volume of the object as fully submersed? Also, it seems that they are first 3D printing a 3D model, dipping, and then comparing the scan to the original 3D model? Is there any chance that the types of models they're choosing are skewing the accuracy of the results? They seem to be choosing models that don't have a lot of surface texture or much fine detail and I'm assuming that's a limit for all 3D scanning tech right now?
Edit: Also, how does this thing handle 3D scanning of something like a sponge or box that might absorb the liquid? I imagine that's just not possible with this kind of scan, right?
Not only would it not work with something absorbent, but (per other comments below) does not (currently) work with shapes that trap air or catch liquid.
I think they're 3D-printing test shapes because it's the simplest way to generate interesting test structures. Otherwise they'd have to manufacture (for example) a bunch of columns plus a ball using metalwork or wood or something. Some of their models look like they were originally scanned from small sculptures -- although in this day and age, it's possible they were just created as 3D models in the first place.
If they were to use real world objects, any comparison would have to use another scanner, which would introduce its own bias.
My initial interest was that it would bring the cost down a lot, but they don't seem to bring great precision and they require a moving robot with at least 3 axes which is unlikely to be very cheap for precision material.
Your idea also requires precision hardware to move the sphere.
It's a better idea than dipping with a robot arm. And also faster.
/s