Realsee: Galois P4 vs. Matterport Pro3 Point Cloud Tested for AEC Work21656
Pages:
1
 Owner,Managing Editor and Publisher of WGAN Forum and WGAN-TV Podcast Fairfield, California |
TomSparks private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Realsee is a We Get Around Network Marketing Partner Realsee: Galois P4 Point Clouds Tested for AEC Work Published by: We Get Around Network | YouTube In this video, I sit down with Tanya, Director of IT Solutions at Realsee, and James Heck, a BIM specialist and principal at Spatial Art Solutions, to look at real point cloud files captured in the field. This is a working conversation, not a sales pitch, comparing E57 exports from the Realsee Galois P4 against the Matterport Pro 3 and digging into how this data actually gets used downstream. If you capture spaces for a living or want to figure out where point cloud capture is headed, this one is for you. The files came from the same warehouse space in Emeryville, scanned deliberately with both cameras from the same positions. The point counts told a surprising story. The Pro 3 scan came in around 112 million points while the P4 landed near 6 million, but James makes the case that raw point count doesn't tell the full story. Importing the P4 E57 into Autodesk Recap took about a minute because registration happens mostly on the device, so the cloud arrives pre-aligned. The Pro 3 file had to be stitched in Recap, which took 15 to 20 minutes. On screen, the difference was night and day: the P4 produced crisp, plumb walls and clean square columns, while the denser Pro 3 cloud looked fuzzy and jittered. On accuracy, the P4 specs at plus or minus 10 mm at 15 m, compared to the Pro 3 at plus or minus 20 mm at 10 m. James notes that puts the P4 comfortably in range for any residential or small commercial project, and its LiDAR detail and 8x photo zoom make it useful for capturing MEP, asset labels, and existing conditions for AEC documentation. He estimates the P4 output sits somewhere between LOD 200 and LOD 300 on ultra density, useful as a modeling reference in Revit. All of this was captured on standard density, with high and ultra still to be tested. Tanya adds an important point on cost and workflow: the Matterport E57 for this project ran about $109, while the Realsee export cost 20 credits, landing in the $40 to $60 range regardless of scan point count. As she puts it, members buying an E57 are really buying a cleaner, more complete workflow that saves time in downstream applications. Try Realsee (Promo code WGAN saves $300 off the Galois P4 for WGAN Members): https://wgan.info/realsee Links to the point cloud files and the tours are in the video description. About Realsee: Realsee Technology develops 3D spatial capture hardware and software, including the Galois P4 LiDAR camera, serving real estate, virtual tour, and AEC professionals worldwide. Topics covered in this video include: Realsee Galois P4, Matterport Pro 3, E57 point clouds, Autodesk Recap, Revit, BIM and as-built capture, LiDAR scanning, registration accuracy Have you tested the Galois P4 for point cloud or BIM work? Share your experience in the comments below. |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
SvenExenberger private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi Tom, thank you for the video and for providing the point clouds. Very interesting material. Would you mind adding some of the equirectagular panorama photos of the Realsee P4 to the links and ressources below the YouTube Video? Would be interesting to compare the quality of the P4 and the Pro3 imagery of the same location side-by-side. Unfortunately no one seems to operate a Realsee P4 here in germany yet. If I could get a P4 for some days I would start an extensive test/comarison of a Pro3/P4 and a terrestrial laser scanner as reference with my students at university of applied sciences Augsburg. On the Realsee homepage there is information about Ultra-HD 24K panoramas. On the same page I can see information about the option to download 16K panos. So is the 24K upscaled, or is the 16K downscaled? Which resolution is the native resolution of the captured image? Maybe someone in the forum can answer that question? Sven |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
Casey_Clark private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi Sven, I’ve looked into the image quality side of the Galois cameras before. From what I understand, the Galois P4 uses 24K panoramic imagery, while the 16K panorama option is from the Galois M2. So the 24K output from the P4 is not an upscaled version of the 16K image — they are from two different camera systems. I think a side-by-side comparison between the P4, Pro3, and a terrestrial laser scanner would be a great idea. Looking at both image quality and point cloud data together would make the comparison much more meaningful. |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1