12 years in metrology and after ton of "lets verify this dimension with caliper" videos, i really admire what you showed here. If you have all of these resources than you for sure can do Linearity with your "verification" artifact in combination with different lenses. Uncertainty is more part of "calibration" company. And there not much that you can do here... But still. We used GOM only for plastic and cold formed metal sheet objects. What you mentioned is absolutely true, they are hiding uncertainty details. If you spent 50k or more on fancy scanner that you expect a nice quality scanning, which in fact can be done with 5-10k scanners. Those scanners are not made for precise measurements, if you wanna go with precision, than CMM is a way to go. For field measurements i would recommend laser tracker.
What I missed in the video are the existing and quite common standards for accuracy checking of 3d scanners like the VDI 2634 sheet 2 (single scan data) and sheet 3 (merged data).
I do see VDI 2634 and ISO 10360 being referenced more often in accuracy specifications these days. I haven't read these standards yet, so I'm not qualified to comment on them. I can say that my own accuracy tests performed on my Zeiss T-Scan Hawk 2 were slightly outside of Zeiss' 10360-based accuracy specification, so it is probably a good idea to reference your own tests rather than completely relying on a manufacturer's specification when explaining accuracies to your stakeholders.
This was just the thing i was looking for! It's a reoccuring topic at my job how we verify the accuracy of our very expensive scanner. We do scans "in field" and would like the accuracy of a CMM, but it's tricky business convincing traditionalists that we can achieve comparable accuracy with a flashy gadget.
Glad you found this video useful! I've also been in the tough position of trying to convince others that a 3D scanner can be nearly as accurate as a CMM, so I know how it feels!
