[crazygringo]

I still wouldn't call that "scanning", I'd just call it "two photos".

The quality/accuracy is not like an actual 3D scan.

But I'll certainly place it in an intermediate category... either "stereoscopic photos" or "spatial photos" if you want to use Apple's name for it.

I just think "scanning" should be reserved for, you know, the things we traditionally call scanning. That are more than just photos -- stereoscopic/spatial or not.

[wsve]

"face scan" doesn't imply "3d face scan", it just implies additional data beyond a regular photograph. Isn't a 3d scan just a bunch of 2d scans lumped together? How many photos need to be taken before it's okay to call it a "scan"?

[crazygringo]

> How many photos need to be taken before it's okay to call it a "scan"?

I think that's actually a really interesting question.

To me, intuitively, it's pretty clear that if you took 100 photos of someone's head being rotated 1° each time, to put together a model of their face, that's a scan.

It's also clear that, intuitively, just 2 photos, or even 4 photos at 25° each, is not a scan. They're just a few individual photos.

All of which feels pretty analogous to, how many pixels does a bitmap need in both dimensions to call it a photo?

A 4x4 bitmap is not a photo. While a 100x100 bitmap certainly is, even if we'd call it thumbnail size. But we'd all agree it's a photo.

So where's the transition? I'd suggest a value of 20 is kind of a gray area threshold. A 20x20 image maybe you can say is starting to turn into a photo. Similarly, a collection of 20 images taken at regularly spaced angles maybe you can say is starting to turn into a 3D scan.