Striking the Right Balance: Measured Dimensions vs. Scanned Dimensions

Today, we're diving into a fascinating topic in the world of data collection – the battle between measured dimensions and scanned dimensions. In our line of work at Anthrotech, we often find ourselves working on new product innovation projects that demand human body measurements in various positions. Sometimes, it's crystal clear that we should fire up the scanners, and other times, it's all about the trusty measuring tape and calipers. Let's explore what factors can help you decide which method to use for a particular project.

The Case for Scanned Dimensions: Unleashing 3D Magic

First up, let's talk about the magic of 3D scanning. Those incredible whole body, head, hand, and foot scanners open up a world of possibilities. Why? Because they allow us to collect a massive number of data points. It's like a data bonanza! Scanning technology offers two big advantages:

Efficiency: With scanning, you can rapidly collect human measurement data. It's not just quick; it's turbo-charged. Plus, it unlocks previously unavailable shape data.

Critical Data Points: Some measurements are hard to get with a measuring tape. Take pants, for example. You'd want to know both the hip circumference and waist circumference, right? With a tape, you measure them separately. But with a scan, you nab both of these measurements simultaneously, along with the distance between them and the relationship of the hip and waist in the front and back. Scans are the superheroes of capturing the shape and contour of the body, which can be nearly impossible to achieve with a tape.

Imagine the product development challenge of designing a respirator mask.  A mask that needs to snugly fit around the contours of the nose and mouth to safely protect the user. Scans reveal the precise shape, enabling mask designers to create a mask that fits like a glove, or rather, like a well-fitted mask!

The Case for Measured Dimensions: Back to Basics

Now, let's talk about the classic measuring tape. There are situations where this old-school method still reigns supreme. Take clothing, for instance – it's traditionally measured with a tape. And if you're sizing up a hat or helmet, you want to account for dimensions on the head, including areas where hair might be compressed. You can manually compress the hair when measuring with a tape, but a scan captures the head and hair in their natural, uncompressed state.

When a person is in everyday clothing, measuring with a tape is usually a breeze because you can get close to the body under the clothing. Scanning, on the other hand, includes the surface of the clothing but might miss the actual body beneath, depending on the type of clothing.

Additional Considerations: Time, Budget, and Error

Now, here's the twist – it's not always about saving time. Scanning doesn't instantly produce measurements; they need to be extracted from the scan. If it's an automatic process, it might be faster but less reliable. For high-accuracy measurements, a skilled technician places landmarks on the scan, which can be time-consuming, depending on the number of landmarks.

Budget might not be a deal-breaker either. The major expense in large surveys is often setting up the team and recruiting participants, and there isn't a significant added cost for combining scans and traditional measurements.

When it comes to minimizing errors, training and practice are key, regardless of the method used. Whether you're taking traditional measurements or placing landmarks on scans, the technician should be well-trained and experienced. 

In the grand scheme of things, both methods have their merits. That's why most projects opt for a blend of traditional anthropometric measurements and 3D scanning. At Anthrotech, we work with product development teams to weigh the benefits of both approaches and craft a customized solution that aligns perfectly with their unique goals. After all, it's all about striking the right balance!