Skip to main content

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
  Accuracy/Repeatibility Static/Dynamic  
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
  1. For every available system, available experimental results are presented.