Table 1 Summary of 4D reconstruction systems available in literature
From: Dynamic 3D shape of the plantar surface of the foot using coded structured light: a technical report
Method | Planar objects | Real feet | Main disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Accuracy/Repeatibility | Static/Dynamic | Â |
Coudert et al.[13] | NA/NA | NA/NA | Technique requires spraying foot with paint or adding sock |
Jezersek & Mazina [14] | 0.2 mm/NA | 0.4 mm/NA | The system requires several specialized camera-projector-mirror systems |
Jezersek et al.[16] | 0.5 mm/NA | NA/NA | Similar to Jezersek & Mazina, the system requires expensive specialized equipment |
Kouchi et al.[17] | 0.5 mm/NA | 2.0 mm/NA | System only measures 4 cross-section areas of the foot, which need to be manually marked on the foot surface |
Schmeltzpfenning et al.[18] | NA/NA | NA/NA | Camera-projector systems work sequentially thus reducing the acquisition frequency |
Mochimaru et al.[20] | NA/NA | NA/NA | Matching random pattern is computationally expensive and can create unpredictable errors |
Yoshida & Kouchi [21] | NA/NA | 4.0 mm/NA | System uses one generic model for all foot reconstructions; shape deformations during walking cannot be fully accounted by the generic model |
Liu et al.[22] | 0.25 mm/NA | NA/NA | System provides good visual results, but lacks proper experiments with real feet |
Blenkinsopp et al.[25] | NA/NA | NA/NA | Reconstruction is based on painted artifacts on the foot surface |