When it comes to documenting objects, the topic of 3D scanning is becoming increasingly interesting. Canon II is checking the feasibility of these option.

Smartphone apps make this technology accessible to virtually everyone, even without the need for expensive specialist equipment. Owners of newer models of Apple’s iPhone or iPad also benefit from a built-in LiDAR sensor, which greatly improves the spatial capture of objects.

Whilst this technology has worked flawlessly for sculptures, for example, even in public spaces, it does have certain limitations regarding the size and exact nature of objects.

As part of the scenography documentation, an attempt was made to capture a 1:20 scale model of a stage set. Several attempts were made using both an iPhone 17 Pro and an iPad M5 with the PolyCam app. Unfortunately, the result was disappointing.

The model measures approx. 60x60cm and is approx. 80cm high. So, in fact, a size that usually causes no problems whatsoever. Other scans of objects approx. 10cm in size were successful. It only becomes somewhat difficult below that, but down to a minimum of 5cm, the results were quite satisfactory.

The problems here can probably be identified as follows:

1. The stage set was constructed from glossy black cardboard. Black surfaces generally pose significant problems for systems that use autofocus. The glossy finish further exacerbates the issue, making it almost impossible for the camera technology to focus correctly. A highly reflective surface (e.g. porcelain) would have been doomed to failure from the outset. Mirrored surfaces are completely out of the question.

2. The example stage set consists of around 30 small tables suspended by ropes in the centre of the stage area. Here too, it was evidently very difficult for the sensor and the autofocus to make precise measurements. It was to be expected that the wafer-thin ropes would not be detected. However, the jumble of chairs evidently caused further ‘confusion’.

Although it is possible to get very close to the object with a smartphone and the standard macro mode can also focus at this close range, the whole scene was evidently too complex.

The scan of a single table attached to a thin wire (diameter approx. 2 mm), on the other hand, worked perfectly. The small chair is only approx. 5×8 cm wide.

The closer the measuring device has to get to the object, the more important it is to determine its position with true precision. However, this does not appear to be as precise as would be desirable for this purpose, meaning that potential measurement errors have a significant negative impact.

The closer the measuring device has to be to the object, the more important it is to determine its position with true precision. However, this does not appear to be as accurate as would be desirable, meaning that potential measurement errors have a significant negative impact on the final result.

Although this has not been conclusively proven, experience suggests that a minimum distance of at least 20 cm is advantageous.


Further tests will follow. These will then use far less intricate examples. Moreover, even without testing, it is clear that scanning individual parts will certainly be successful. In the aforementioned example, however, dismantling was out of the question. Unfortunately, this applies to many models where the design is so intricately complex.

There is some hope that it will be possible to carry out at least a rough spatial scan and then scan the individual elements separately. It would then be possible to arrange these individual scans correctly within the overall scan and thus replace it. However, this requires some basic knowledge of 3D software and a considerable investment of time. For regular collections, this option is certainly out of the question.

This technology is therefore primarily suitable for relatively solid objects with little to no intricate detail, where there is a good chance that no or only minimal post-processing will be required. The freeware Blender is certainly worth considering for this purpose, as it also allows export to web-compatible 3D formats.

The Sketchfab platform features numerous examples of objects from museums around the world. In some cases, a download is possible, but in all cases, the object can generally be viewed in three dimensions either in a web browser or – if available – directly in virtual space using VR glasses. With regard to stage design models, this naturally also means that one can ‘walk around’ the stage and explore it accordingly. This is an aspect that is also very exciting for the design process and communication with the director and stage technicians.

For scenographers currently active in the field, however, general 3D modelling is also becoming more important than physical model-making.

When it comes to scanning lighting equipment, we encounter similar problems on the one hand, but also additional challenges. Here too, we are mostly dealing with black, and in some cases glossy, surfaces.

Furthermore, older devices in particular often feature very delicate components that are not only permanently fixed but also difficult to access.Last but not least, the interior of the devices is also of great interest for documentation and research. You hardly get access to it even with a relatively small device. Endoscopic technology will be necessary here.

Dr. Stefan Gräbener, april 20th, 2026

3D-scan of set-model with PolyCam on iPhone17pro and iPadM5, optimized in Blender 5.1
3 versions with different settings

3D-scan of table-model with PolyCam on iPhone17pro, optimized in Blender 5.1

Links

LiDar – Wkipedia english

Blender

Examples of 3D-Scans at Sketchfab:

Theatre Dress

Toy Theatre – Sörmlands Museum

Set-Design-Model_ PARSIFAL, the enchanted garden of Klingsor

WolkenApparat

Bogenlampen-Scheinwerfer

Shakespeare in Berlin