Will Matterport ever support Leica blk360 G2?19408
Pages:
1
|
vantage3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'm curious if anybody here has any insight as to whether or not matterport will bring support in for the BLK360 G2 similar to that as the G1. The BLK360 has become an integral part of my workflow. The clients I have recognize the leica a brand and I love The interface is still provides with the matterport walkthroughs. I recognize that matterport has released their own version of lidar. I would have to abandon my current grandfathered plan to use it. I'm not excited to go that route. I would likely have to abandon matterport before then. In my market though, I see the BLK360 being a sweet point with my clients. I love the seamless integration into matterport. I find them accessing and appreciating the ability to walk through the space and their client meeting. It would be a shame for matterport not to support the next generation. I love any insight any of you can provide. Anybody heard any whisperings or anything? I just need to plan my next step. |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
adostrophe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Leica has sent the SDK to Matterport just after the G2's launch. As it's been apparent so far, Matterport is unlikely to make it compatible anytime soon. Rumours suggest that Matterport considers the G2 a direct competitor to the Pro 3, which is why they aren't going ahead with the compatibility. My personal opinion is that they are two different product lines, with unique use cases and price points. The G2 is so small and light, it would be great as a carry on. And, I'm sure it would benefit Matterport on the long run. It's up to them though. The attachment is a quick comparison between the G1 and G2, for those who are considering buying it.  |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @adostrophe I agree that it would be direct competition with the Pro 3 camera. But I think there needs to be detailed comparison chart for the G 2 and Pro 3. That would give someone a better idea why they would not be moving in that direction. But in my opinion I do not see any movement anytime soon toward the G2. | ||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
MeshImages private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I think there would be more chances than risks in the support of the BLKG2. The G2 has a much higher price tag, therefore I don´t see it as a competititor to the Pro3. But Matterport could get more clients from the AEC space onto their platform with the support of the G2. | ||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
vantage3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Well, my use case is such that they are likely to lose my business. I would prefer not to think about how much money I have sent to them over the last 5 or 6 years. Unfortunately I am purely in the AEC field. Real estate has become to saturated in my area for me to justify remaining in that field. I come from the background of AEC regardless. I do not love paying extra for the .e57 file, but I am willing to. Unfortunately I am almost to the point that I cannot continue with the G1 as it is too slow for me to maintain the volume that my or my technicians will need to maintain. I am not in the market for a Pro3. I like the idea of it, but I cannot approach the engineer saying that I am sporting a Matterport sensor. They know and trust the reputation of Leica. I also agree with MeshImages. There is a barrier of entry to the G2 that will push the majority of the clientele to the Pro3 save those few like me, who will make it up in the processing fees that they charge to run the Leica sensor. I have drug my feet hoping that they will implement support for the G2, but thus far have come up longing. I don't want to leave, but it looks like I will eventually be forced to consider an alternative and maybe land on a Leica native software. On another note, I find it interesting that Leica is willing to share the SDK with Matterport when they would stand to profit so much from selling the software. It seems petty for Matterport to not take advantage of that. But what do I know? |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
vantage3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I also agree with @ron0987. I have yet to find a real comparison of the pro3 to either the blk360 g1, or g2. I would love for them to demonstrate how it stacks up. | ||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @vantage3d I totally understand your position and agree with the real estate market being saturated and looking for other revenue sources, AEC being a different avenue for that source. I also run an older Faro S120 scanner and also found first hand that time on the job is greatly increased when using it. I ran a few scans from it and compared the Pro3 to S120 in Cloud Compare and found minimal difference. I know the MP capture app does all registration in the app with final registration processed in the cloud on MP servers, I am not familiar with the newest Leica App but it appears to do the same, but also appears to have yearly renewal fees. But when running G2 thru MP app it is the same as Pro3. I have to register all my Faro scans in Scene software. After saying all of this when you look at the actual side by side comparison the return on investment can’t be beat. I also understand the learning curve that it requires to show your clients. Most architects and engineers look at MP as a camera and not a scanner. Once you introduce the scan capabilities, I found them a lot more interested and receptive, plus the walk thru capabilities. Next month I will be releasing some stats on comparison of scanners. The problem I see with stats are that after using scanners for 10 years, these features can be adjusted based on need. These are just my opinion and only what I see. Some of these I discussed with MP. The funny thing I spoke with MP last year at the Geo conference and they thought I was crazy about why would I want to be able to adjust scan data. Now MP has released an update that allows some adjustment on density, wow it took them a little bit of time to figure this out when maybe listening to user may be a valuable resource. I also think there was other factors why they did this. What I do like about my Faro scanner is I can adjust resolution and quality of each scan in just a few seconds. These may increase or decrease my scan time. If I need the detailed scan data of an architectural detail then the time used to scan with the Faro may be warranted. But if you’re looking for the documentation of information to rebuild a standard building or home the Matterport is sufficient. If you have read any of my previous posts over the years you know I am hard pressed to support MP unless it is supported, but I am always giving my true unbiased opinion on what I see. But the bottom line is that resolution can be manipulated by either more scans or run scans closer to item scanned or more overlapping scans. Paying $59 per each E57 can be an added expense but the price difference between the two systems is very significant. But if you look at the time saved using the MP Pro3 can offset that price easily. But before jumping on the MP band wagon, next month I will post a better side by side comparison of equipment.  |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1