CIPA 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
Since large deviations were observed on a rubber traffic cone 
with orange and white stripes, this object (not a plane) was also 
added to the test procedure. Similar effects can be observed 
when range poles coated with “warning” color are scanned. 
4. RESULTS 
4.1 Instruments in test 
For the tests we selected all laser scanners (working either on 
the time-of-flight or triangulation principle) that are able to 
record points at a 10 m range. According to the list supplied by 
our web site (WWW, 2003) this comprises about one dozen 
different instruments. The following list was created at the time 
of the deadline of this publication (June 30 th , 2003). Updates 
will be published in the web (WWW, 2003). 
Manufacturer 
Type 
already 
tested 
tests in 
prepar. 
Callidus Precision Systems 
Callidus 
2(u) 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 
l(o),l(m) 
Mensi 
S25 
1(0) 
Mensi 
GS 100 
Km) 
Optech 
ILRIS-3D 
Km) 
Riegl 
LMS-Z210 
l(u) 
Riegl 
LMS-Z360 
1 (m) 
Zoller+Froehlich GmbH 
Imager 5003 
Km) 
Total Number 
7 
3 
Table 1 : Number of scanners in the tests (o = owned by i3mainz, 
m = instrument made available by manufacturer, u = by user) 
4.2 Angular accuracy 
Manufacturer 
Type 
vert. 
dist. 
horiz. 
dist. 
max. 
diff. 
Callidus Precision Syst. 
Callidus (1) 
5.6“ 
4.3 a 
12,2 a 
Callidus Precision Syst. 
Callidus (2) 
9.9 a 
2.5 a 
18.3 a 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 (1) 
0.8 
0.8 
1.6 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 (2) 
0.5 
0.5 
1.1 
Mensi 
S25 
3.8 b 
3.4 b 
9.2 b 
Mensi 
GS 100 
1.9 
2.3 
3.3 
Riegl 
LMS-Z210 
10.2 a 
16.8 a 
27.1 a 
Table 2: Standard deviations (mm) of at least 14 independent 
vertical and 14 independent horizontal distances (orthogonal to 
range) between two spheres. 
d Because of poor resolution only valid for short ranges! 
b Might be influenced by poor range accuracy at far range. Much better 
for close ranges (e.g. 0.8 mm vert, and 0.2 mm horiz. at 4 m range) 
Fig. 9: Measuring noise in range direction (std. dev. for a single 
point) for different scanners on gray surface (40% reflectivity). 
4.3 Range accuracy 
Manufacturer 
Type 
dose 
<10m 
far 
10-50m 
max. 
diff. 
Callidus Precision Syst. 
Callidus (1) 
1.5 
2.6 
Callidus Precision Syst. 
Callidus (2) 
2.8 
. a 
5.9 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 (1) 
0.6 
1.1 
2.3 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 (2) 
0.4 
0.5 
0.9 
Mensi 
S25 
1.4 b 
4.6 C 
7.7 C 
Mensi 
GS 100 
2.6 
2.0 
8.2 
Riegl 
LMS-Z210 
19.7 
. !l 
40.4 
Table 3: Difference between known and scanned distances in 
range direction. Std. dev. (mm) of at least 12 independent short 
distances between two spheres in close range and 14 indepen 
dent short distances in far range. 
d Modeling of spheres not possible for far ranges due to poor resolution. 
b But 0.2 mm at 4 m range, 0.5 mm at 6 m range. c At 22m range. 
Manufacturer 
Type 
zero error 
sphere 
plane 
Callidus Precision Syst. 
Callidus (1) 
-7 
b 
Callidus Precision Syst. 
Callidus (2) 
-16 
0 
Mensi 
S25 
+4 
-2 
Mensi 
GS 100 
-16 
b 
Riegl 
LMS-Z210 
+7 2 a 
+4 
Table 4: Constant (zero) error (mm) for instruments that can 
measure distances on two different sides of the instrument. 
Positive sign means range is measured too short. 
“Very poor modeling accuracy. b Not determined. 
4.4 Resolution 
Manufacturer 
Type 
Reso 
lution 
Edge 
quality 
Diam. 
in mm 
Callidus Prec. Syst. 
Callidus (1) 
poor 
poor 
97.9 
Callidus Prec. Syst. 
Callidus (2) 
poor 
poor 
102.2 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 (1) 
good 
average 
100.5 
Cyra Technologies 
Cyrax2500 (2) 
good 
average 
97.7 
Mensi 
S25 
good 
average 
101.5 
Mensi 
GS 100 
good 
average 
103.7 
Riegl 
LMS-Z210 
poor 
P.P- 0 - r -.. 
n.a. 
Table 5: Evaluation of resolution and edge quality. Diameter for 
100 mm cylinder modeled from point cloud. 
Fig. 11: Typical examples for resolution results (see fig. 6). 
Upper: good quality. Center: average quality. 
Lower: poor quality