Talk:White light scanner

confusing

This article is quite confusing: White light scanning is white light interferometry, while 3D-scanning with fringe projection is triangulation or photogrammetry. The latter one is using white light too, but that is all what is common. Therefore I will remove the reference to my thesis which is misplaced here. -- Dr. George 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. white light scanner should probably change to be a disambiguation between the interferometry and other approaches ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate accuracy claims

It's very misleading to characterize WLI as having better accuracy than other interferometric techniques. For one it's wrong, and it's not really the key technological advantage that people use it for, which is conspicuously missing from the article anyway. The citation is to a page that no longer exists and is clearly using outdated information, as both WLI and narrow-band interferometry can have much higher accuracies than the 60-odd nm reported. This is clearly derived from some company's poorly researched marketing blurb on a (now gone) web page. Those things are usually biased and unreliable, especially with regard to claims of superiority. The title of this article is also pretty weird. As Dr. George also says, most people call this "white light interferometry" in general, and the Optical interferometry#Low-coherence interferometry uses "Low-coherence interferometry." I would suggest just deleting this and restarting with one of those two titles. Even that three paragraph section in Optical interferometry#Low-coherence interferometry really contains more useful and accurate information than this whole article. Tarchon (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]