Okay, I know everyone loves the new 3D scanning tech, but my project in Tucson last month totally fell apart because of it.

We were trying to map a small Hohokam pit house site, and the scanner just kept glitching on the adobe walls, giving us a patchy model that missed key stratigraphy. I ended up having to re-do the whole thing with a total station and hand drawings, which honestly gave us better context anyway. Does anyone else think we're leaning too hard on flashy tech before it's actually reliable for complex sites?

4 comments

4 Comments

rileyp491mo ago

Man, I used to be the first one pushing for the newest gear on site. What changed your mind? I had a similar mess with a scanner on a wet clay feature last fall, and the old school grid and pencil method just worked when the tech failed. Sometimes the simple way is just the right tool for the job, even if it's not as cool to show off.

karen_west591mo ago

But is it really that big of a deal?

rileyp4925d ago

Hang on, gotta push back a little. Tech failing on a wet clay feature isn't really the same as the basic grid and pencil method being a better tool. The grid is still the standard for a reason, but a scanner doesn't just "fail" on wet clay unless you're using the wrong settings or gear for that condition. The real deal is that good field tech requires knowing when to use each tool, not acting like the old way is inherently better because one tool didn't work right that one time.

grant_allen8525d ago

@rileyp49 Gotta disagree there. The grid and pencil method is slower and way more prone to human error than a properly set up scanner. If your scanner failed on wet clay, it sounds like a calibration issue, not a tech problem. Cutting-edge tools raise the bar for accuracy across the board, and that's worth the learning curve.