DIGITAL SCANNING

Industry Talk
21

Håvard, I would love to give away my methods, but wouldn’t leave much for others to discover. I think you inquired about my methods in the past. Let’s just say you have to think out of the box. Literally.

Working in the cross section slice mentality puts one in a box. That’s what beziers and splines do, it puts you in a box. Limitations. If you are working and thinking in these parameters that’s where the limitations are. In using this method you are relying on the algorithms to decide your surface across absolutes. These absolutes have limitations to scaling boards. Not having to deal with absolutes it opens up the shape to freely scale 3 axis individually and infinitely with out any distortions. And I’ll leave it at that.

Personally, I have no problems with that method. And if you are happy your boards look the same as the other guys board using the same machine and programs. Haavard, If shaper A punches in the same length and nose and tail width and cross sections as shaper B in the same program the the outlines will be the same. Reading curves is part of shaping, algorithms work by injecting the set mathematical formula to CREATE the curve from one point to another. If both shaper A and B were hand shaping to these dimensions the curves would be completely different and noticeable by eye. A shaper that can read curves well is in a way reading algorithms either analog or digital.

With the 3D, DSD, asp, all the over the counter machine use these types of programs you are working in 2D, and relying on the algorithms to figure out the 3rd dimensions. Algorithms are pre set in the programs, that’s why someone with a keen eye for curves can easily tell, funny I just spoke to another shaper the other day and he also brought this up as he can see the similarity in the shaped off of these machines.

Surfding, no worries I’m not trying to take anything away from you. I was curious as to how you scanned. When you post and advertise in a semi-public forum I think it’s open for inquires from everyone, and more people will get some knowledge from our posts. I have no interest in using slice methods as I have been down this road and has too many limitations for me. By the way shape3D is a misnomer. It should be named “Shape2D and the program will figure out the 3rd dimension”.

I come from years of hand shaping background. My personal goal was to reproduce my hand shapes not an algorithmic creation. I wanted all my subtle tweaks to be reproduced better than I could reproduce it myself as that was my signature to the shape. In this method I can maintain all the aspects of my hand shapes and know my customers are getting my best work on my best day. I hardly post as I am nobody and have really no opinions as to board constructions and there are way more knowledgeable people with much more time than I. But this is an area I have some practical knowledge. I wish you the best. Good luck with your experiments for myself it was the most enjoyable part of this journey.

22

Thanks OAK.

Good luck to you as well!

23

whos your son?

24

Hi Oak,

I guess I’ve asked before about your methods, but honestly I’m more interested in the failures and why it didn’t work. That and the density of the samples being made and how you fill in the blanks, mostly to know how dense the grid needs to be to be accurate with your method.

While I don’t like having everything handed over on a silver plate, l do like learning from someone else’s mistakes rather than having to do all the mistakes myself…

The claims you are making that your method is real 3D while the surface algorithms are not are completely rubbish. I work alongside professional 3D modelers on a daily basis. I’d say they use 2D view about 99% of the time, if not more. Does that make what they model two dimensional? Same thing with shape3D(or surfcad or aps/aku), while you do edit in two dimensions that does not make the surface model two dimensional. In shape3D you can edit in 3D as well, but it’s more annoying than useful IMHO. Have a look at the shape3D file format and notice that the point3D class have x, y and z value, while not even necessary for the surface model to be in 3D the curves are defined in 3D. A set/mesh of sample points being more 3D than a 3D surface model based on 3D curves is just rubbish.

I can see that there are issues with using interpolation from cross sections and criticism of the interpolation being used in above mentioned programs are in order, but the end result being poor are more likely to do with sparse datasets (too few cross sections to define what you intend) and the user not being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the software. In some cases the interpolation between cross sections are going to be different between different software, the same values in aps/aku and shape3D may not produce the same results.

Given that different shapers inputs the exactly same numbers in every aspect in a software package and cut with the same machine it will make the same board, why shouldn’t it? Given you scan a board a second time, you’d want still want the same result, wouldn’t you? You’d expect the same shapers to produce the same results if they where using the same outline, rocker and rail templates as well. However the strength of the beziers are really how little you have to alter to change the entire board. Leave the tail and center width alone and adjust one tangent and you have a completely new outline. That’s the beauty of it. If the boards coming out of these machines and programs are extremely similar it is not necessarily caused by the limitations of the algorithm as it is really extremely flexible. First of all, there is a very real possibility that the boards are made from the same default boards and only a tweaked a little bit before they are cut. Secondly, since these designs are viewed on a computer screen in a relatively small scale, you get the curves that look the most pleasing to the eye at that scale, which may be far from the curves you would go for in real life scale.

A mesh or a data set has severe issues when it comes to editing. Either it’s going to take time, or you are going to use algorithm to edit these sets in a user friendly way. But those advanced editing methods create or have limitations if they are going to be user friendly. Thrust me, I’ve edited meshes a plenty enough to know. In the end, it’s just a different box.

regards,

Håvard

25

Håvard, I trust you. But, I think you just need to do the complete process from having an actual model to scan then do the actual milling of the board to actually see the difference. Then once you have done all this. scale the model in the individual axis and see how the shape maintains proportions. I don’t use mesh’s algorithms. Like I said it’s out of the box. Use my example of my challenge shape in the above post and use that as a study example to understand the hurdles to overcome.

We can go over this ad nauseum and you still won’t get it until you actually do the entire process. Sounds good in theory but in practice it’s not what I was after. Try it and get back to me.

26

Shaun Ward he’s been on the WQS for 8 years. Next year hopes to have a run for the WCT. He travels with Brett Simpson, Timmy Reyes, Jesse Merle Jones.

My nephew is Dane Ward (Pro Junior).

Quote:

whos your son?

27

the similarity that is evident on the boards does not come mainly from the algorithm. It comes mainly from similar set up of bezier curves and Design trends.

Quote:

Håvard, from my experience this is where the mystical “magic” is. If you come from a handshaping back ground with some mileage then you would understand what the difference is. It’s the process of the elusive replication of your special “magic” boards. Smooth is fine, but it’s not necessarily what your after as a hand shaper it’s more about flow and feeling not an overly algorithmed mathematically perfect shape that is extremely smoothed out. That’s not what I’m after.

I know it’s hard to understand foot dents in new boards in this age of pop outs and ridgid constructions. Yet these are some quirky requests that I have had to deal with. Some advanced riders like the boards to be an extension of their body, the foot dents allow the deck rocker and deck surface to be below the surface of the feet. The foot dents allow the rider to have more control over the board in extremely critical situations, much better control of the board than just a smooth deck surface. This is like ordering a custom set of shoes custom made to your own feet, kinda like pro athletes having custom made shoes for competition. If you have ever shaped custom boards for guys of this caliber they will all tell you, “I can’t wait to break it in and get my foot dents in it.” Strange but true.

From my experience there is more to a magic board than just smooth. Interpolate = interpret. Interpolate meaning,

1.

to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things or parts; interject; interpose; intercalate.

2.

Mathematics. to insert, estimate, or find an intermediate term in (a sequence).

3.

to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, esp. deceptively or without authorization.

4.

to insert (new or spurious matter) in this manner.

Interpret from point to point. Sorry, from my expererience something get’s lost in translation. (kinda like using google to translate japanese :slight_smile: Soemthing lost get in translation. hehe…How can you call creating surfaces and call it a SCANNING to a degree of any accuracy with only 3 slices? I think people need to know the algorithms (interpolations) are pre set mathematical formula, ie shaper A and B would get the same results by punching in the same data in the same 3 slices. This is the reason why all the board that come off these machines all look alike because they are from the same formula. Am I the only that can see the difference? Or is everyone that uses these machines and program blind to see the similarity in all the shapes?

28

similarity is one thing when you have multiple shapers independent of each other shaping/ designing and on one side of the globe by hand to the same dimensions. even if the dimensions are the same the boards would have completely different curves. now, that would be similar. it wouldn’t be exact.

don’t you think it’s kinda funny when a shaper that designs the same shape as someone on the complete other side of the globe with no knowledge of the other shaper and happens to punch in the same exact numbers and slices, what happens? same exact board.

where do the exactness come from? not mainly algorithms? boh…kay.

team generic? now that’s a design trend.

29

Given that the shapers only plug in width at nose, center, tail and don’t touch a thing afterwards they will get exactly the same board if they are using the same software and the same machine (two really big ifs). That doesn’t mean the software is bad, it mean the shapers/designers did a poor job.

On the other hand, given the big focus on tail, nose and widepoint measurement they are boxing you in a bit. Move the control points away from these constraints and you will probably see the similarities become smaller.

regards,

Håvard

30

C’mon Oak. Your words are of a hard headed man. Maybe try the aku or sh3d, get some boards cut… and see for yourself that you can get different looking shapes if you want to… I mean very different looking shapes… with different “essence”… not generic as you say.

Anyway. As far as I am concerned the best surfers are loving boards made by these programs… and as they say… the magic boards are happening more often since they’ve (programs) been developed.

The way the beziers are usually set up (and that is the optimal) are… 3 control points at each rocker (top, bottom)… that’s what makes the curves look somehow similar… not the slice interpolating algorithms.

A little thought… Grab a batch of JS’s and batch of Chilli’s and have a good look… Very similar beautifully looking shapes, little different particularities from the hand finishes. These boards are made with very different programs. (SurfCAD and aps) Trends. Trends, Oak.

I believe you would probably say the shapes come from the same program.

Same with other shapes of a few other shapers… Trends oak. trends.

I believe the problem is: these new programs… aps… sh3d are too good for the purpose of making surfboards. It has become easy for the person that has a good board knowledge to make (design) a quality board, really easy. Who gains is the final customer/surfer… better boards… great consistency.

31

Havard:

It’s a mute point. You and I both know that you have a lot of design flexiblity when using a Design Program. Yes you can move your control points, adjust rail tangents, nose and tail rocker, foil thickness and so on. KKL the largest cutting house in the World uses Shape 3D now. They have seen the need to be flexible. I don’t think you will be able to convince OAK the design power of Shape 3D and the like. He has his way that he likes and that’s that! Oak must of had some bad experience and has delevoped some Nero Associations. At this point this subject is turning into a reglion (it’s a matter of what you believe). In the meantime a lot of good designs and boards are being produced. Sure there are generic designs like in any field. The part I like about design software is the time you save in building a quiver for example:

6’1" x 18 3/8" x 2 3/16 5 1/4" Nose Rocker 2 1/2 tail rocker (Orange County, CA) center point 1 1/2" back

6’1" x 18 3/8" x 2 3/16 5 1/4" Nose Rocker 2 tail rocker (Central Mexico - Secrete Point break) 1 1/2" back (only the tail rocker adjusted for the wave)

6’3" x 18 1/4" x 2 3/16 5 5/8" Nose Rocker 2 5/8 tail rocker (Backdoor, Pipeline) center point 1" back

7’2" x 18 1/2" x 2 3/8 5 7/4" Nose Rocker 2 3/8 tail rocker (Sunset Point, North Shore) center point 0

These boards all came off the same model (like a good set of irons, adjustments made to fit the wave being ridden) Fin placement is another subject.

Nose and tail width’s adjusted to the surfer’s preference as well as type of wave being surfed.

All these boards worked well.

One advantage that a shaper can have over another (apart from technological know how) is being familiar with different breaks around the world. Actually going into the water and getting a feel for the wave. Even if he eats his lunch out there he will feel what kind of board he needs to shape for the given conditions.

Having said all that it’s broken down to this:

  1. Knowing the Surfer’s ability

  2. Familiar with the wave the board is being use for.

  3. Design Formulas

  4. Method (Manual or Computer Aided) Doesn’t matter they both work (however time is running out)

Therefore it’s not a matter of what scanner, design program, CNC machine, Skill 100 or Hitahci planner you use but how you use them!

Shaping is an art and a science.

The art is how you use that science.

Quote:

Given that the shapers only plug in width at nose, center, tail and don’t touch a thing afterwards they will get exactly the same board if they are using the same software and the same machine (two really big ifs). That doesn’t mean the software is bad, it mean the shapers/designers did a poor job.

On the other hand, given the big focus on tail, nose and widepoint measurement they are boxing you in a bit. Move the control points away from these constraints and you will probably see the similarities become smaller.

regards,

Håvard

32

Foilednuts, you must have some vested interest in one of these systems to make this is your 1st post on this board. This thread has become borderline ad nauseum for me. I started this venture in 1988, I have done my homework and used your methods and stand by my methods and am very confident with my results. I don’t want to sound cocky but I am so confident that I make a challenge to you or anyone using these programs or methods and machines.

Honestly, I don’t consider myseld a trendy fella, if anything I like to blaze my own trail. I extend a challenge to you. You use your own scan and shape your own board and glass your own board. Once completed you then supply your completed board to me to scan using my methods for me to scan and finish shape and once I have completed the board, I can then use my scanner and use an inspection tool to pick up any points along the board any where. Then we compare the difference in data.

I doubt it would even need to be probed with inspection tool, as the difference would be noticeable by eye and feel. The difference in resolution would be VERY NOTICEABLE.

In using my method of scanning, the board you supplied to me for scanning will be much more accurate than to your original scan. My scan data would not be an INTERPRETATION, the data will be the actual 3D surface of the said board or, if you like you could then do a second generation scan from the said board if you like and I am confident my scan will still be much more accurate than to your original or secondary so called scan.

The 2D programs are great tools for design and visualization, nothing wrong with using them for designing and they will cut a smooth board for sure but there are limitations when using them for scanning. What you see on screen isn’t necessary what is cut. As if you use these machines and have done enough of different and varying shapes you would be first to admit.

The differences are only relevant if you are concerned about accuracy in reproduction and the ability to scale any axis independently from each other.

The term scan has become a loose word in this field. Honestly, I could care less. As long as you are happy with your system and machines ultimately that’s all that matters. I just thought it would be nice for the other Swaylockians for me to share the differences, as most don’t really know what the differences are.

I rest my case.

33

Håvard, if is a big word, it just looks small. Let me think hmmmm,…………what would make them the same curve and outline?

It’s just almost impossible for some else to punch in the same three slices with the same 3 dimension. That would be impossible. Right? RIGHT! Just in the outline alone would produce the same curves. Identical.

34

surfding, I’m sure other milling shaping services are offering the shape3D due to production and business reasons. Like I said I have quite a few customers that have mentioned their disapointment with the other methods of scanning. It is much easier for the novice to get a board cut, but it’s the least accurate method. I doubt very much they are going all shape3D, they will probably offer this method to other shapers that use the program or novice shapers or someone that doesn’t have the skill to shape and is more interested in designing a board or someone that can’t differentiate between the two. Most that get boards off the these machine are just happy to get a board that is smooth and close something they designed.

As I mentioned, I have done my homework. The only bad experience I had was the boards were not accurate to my study models and had limitations. My challenge stands. You are close enough to make it easy. We can then share our results with the board.

35
Quote:

The differences are only relevant if you are concerned about accuracy in reproduction and the ability to scale any axis independently from each other.

Hi Oak,

what do you mean by scaling each axis independently? I thought this was a feature of every surfboard cad program.

regards,

Håvard

36

haarvard, with some of these programs there are distortion issues when scaling.

37

Help me - I must be missing something.

Hand shaping gets accuracy of, what? 1/32"

Machines do similar.

Cut foam to glass, glass to sand, sand to shape

Deal with different foam density distributions, glass batches, resin loading, overlap trimming, polymer cross-linking etc etc

There are a ton of variables we don’t have close to a handle on (never mind the wobbles , potential for distortion owing to moisture absorption, etc. in the bits of wood (sorry - templates) hand shapers use to interpolate their cuts).

Then every wave the board is surfed on is different, and the surfer may have just had lunch.

  • I simply don’t see the benefits of 0.0001" accuracy in scanning at this stage of surfboard evolution.

I can see the benefits in getting a good shape into design software quickly and accurately, particularly since the shape is then available for incremental tweaks.

I also like the idea that people are pushing the technology envelope, because that is where the great leap forward will come from. So good on you.

38

Red_Boards a good shaper maybe able to shape to 1/32” deviations to just the general measured points of a board for single custom shape but it is humanly impossible to hand shape and maintain those tolerances through the entire surface especially if you have to shape multiple shapes of a certain design or “models”.

This is where the cnc machine capabilities surpass the human is the ability to reproduce in consistency. The next step of accuracy is the ability to reproduce a shape. This is why I posted to inquire about surfdings methods of scanning and it’s relevant to the accuracy of reproducing your best shapes. If you are using a machine that is only shaping to the accuracy of 1/32” you need to find another machine or operator. A good machine should have the capabilities to shape ±.003 consistently all day and night.

The benefits of having an accurate reproduction of your best shape are to maintain the most influential and crucial elemental structure in all the entire construction process is the “shape”. The more control you have over the accuracy of the foundation the “shape”, most all other variables become a mute point. If your glasser has his method and technique dialed in you should get consistent results.

There are benefits of using the 2D programs and like you have mentioned “speed” and “quickness” for the novice. But it’s definitely not accuracy. In fact, In the time it would take someone to design a board from scratch I can scan a board quicker and as fast or faster.

You are correct, controlling incrementally is a key but at what level of accuracy?

39

Not really any vested interest… I don’t have a surfboard shaping machine and wouldn’t help much if I had one at this point. I’ve been into CNC machines for a few years… Cutting steel.

What motivates me to write is that I think you went too far when you said that the boards “all look alike because they come from the same formula”… That’s not quite right.

I do believe your method is really really accurate, by the sounds of it I’d say you are the best bet for someone wanting to scan a board. I would like to know more about it, I’m sure it would be very very interesting. Although I’m not really interested in scanning. Today It’s just pretty bloody easy to make a good board from scratch if you know how to bend those curves…

40

My friend Scotty-G has the Sony hookup and does their scanning. He is scanning 25 of my shapes right now. He uses a Human body scanner used in the medical world and will scan a board in .08 seconds… yes… that’s right… .08 seconds. He takes a series of image scans and weaves them together into whatever format you need for your machine. He uses a blue background.

Give me a shout if you are interested.

Surfding, I’m not trying to steal your thunder, you could actually benefit from having him split your scans with you to save you some time and wear on your gear.

Dave

619-757-0100