The portable LiDAR scanner market just got a lot more interesting. 3DMakerPro has officially launched the Raven, and with an early bird price starting at $999 , it's far outperforming any standalone LiDAR/SLAM scanner on the market. But a low price only matters if the hardware is up to par.

Here’s an in-depth look at the Raven’s specs, where it sits in 3DMakerPro’s lineup, how it stacks up against competitors like the FJD Trion, SHARE, and others, and what the community is already flagging as potential issues.

What is 3DMakerPro Raven?

The Raven is 3DMakerPro’s entry-level LiDAR space scanner: a smaller, lighter, and significantly cheaper alternative to the current Eagle (launched in early 2025) and the professional-level Hawk.

Given 3DMakerPro’s progression from structured light object scanners (mole, seal, moose) into space-based LiDAR territory with Eagle, Raven represents the next logical step: bringing autonomous, portable LiDAR scanning to a price point where hobbyists, content creators, and small businesses can realistically justify the purchase.

The device was first spotted at Formnext 2024, where initial hands-on impressions suggested it looked like a compact version of the Hawk, with an RTK expansion slot, a touchscreen, and a suggested price of $999. These early details have now been confirmed by the official spec sheet and price ranges on the 3DMakerPro store page.

For those unfamiliar with the 3DMakerPro scanning workflow, the Eagle scanner videos provide a good overview of the RayStudio software pipeline, the scanning process, and the overall output quality you can expect. Raven shares the same software ecosystem and output formats, so these tutorials provide context directly relevant to the Raven user experience.

3DMakerPro Raven Specifications

From the datasheet published by 3DMakerPro :

Accuracy: 2cm at 10m, 3cm at 20m, 5cm at 40m

LiDAR detection range: 40m at 10% reflectivity / 50m at 80% reflectivity

Maximum scan coverage: 80–100 m (Note: 3DMakerPro lists this as the “scan range” — see explanation below)

Field of view: 360° horizontal × 40° vertical

Point cloud rate: 150,000 pts/sec

Laser: 905 nm, Class 1 eye-safe (IEC60825-1:2014)

Camera: 12 MP, 1 camera or (2-camera system for MAX version)

HDR Mode: No

Display: 3.9" AMOLED

Battery: 12,000mAh — about 2 hours of working time, supports external power supply when charging

Weight: 1.1 kg

Dimensions: 148 × 288 × 98 mm

Integrated Processor: 8 Core, 2.4GHz, 32GB Memory (Expandable via TF Card)

Data interface: USB-C ×1

Power supply: USB-C ×1

Network: Wi-Fi 5

Output formats: 3D PLY color point cloud, 3D PLY Gaussian splatting, 3D OBJ colored polygon model

Expansion: RTK Expansion Kit, Insta360 X4/X5 Expansion Kit, various accessories

A note on "Scan Range" and "Scan Radius": Read this before comparing

This is a detail that can be confusing when comparing LiDAR scanners, and it's worth clarifying. 3DMakerPro uses two separate specifications that sound similar but mean different things: "scan range" is the detection distance of the LiDAR, i.e., the distance at which the laser can detect a surface from the device. "Scan range" is approximately the total coverage diameter (about twice the radius). So, when 3DMakerPro says the Eagle has a "140 m scan range," that corresponds to a detection range of 70 m.

FJD Trion, SHARE, and Livox all specify "scan range" as the detection distance , equivalent to what 3DMakerPro calls "scanning range." This means that a direct comparison between 3DMakerPro's "140 m range" and FJD's "70 m range" is misleading: they actually describe the same capability. All comparisons in this article use the consistent metric of LiDAR detection range (the distance reached by the sensor) at 80% surface reflectivity, unless otherwise noted.

3DMakerPro Raven Pricing

This is where Raven comes in. Four configurations are available at launch, at discounted prices:

Raven vs Eagle vs Hawk vs FJD Trion vs SHARE: Full Comparison

Here's a comparison of current handheld LiDAR/SLAM scanners. All LiDAR range values ​​use a detection distance at 80% reflectivity for consistent comparison (see the note on scanning range vs. beam above).

*LiDAR range = detection distance at 80% surface reflectivity. 3DMakerPro markets the Eagle as "140m scan range" and the Raven as "100m scan range"—these figures represent the total coverage diameter (~2x detection distance), not comparable to the FJD/SHARE "scan range" specifications. This table uses the consistent detection distance metric.

Understanding the LiDAR Sensor: Why It Matters

The community is paying a lot of attention to the LiDAR sensor used by the Raven, and for good reason: it is arguably the most important component in any SLAM scanner.

The Livox Mid-360 has become the de facto standard sensor in this class of portable SLAM scanners. Manufactured by Livox (a DJI subsidiary), it is a compact unit with a 360° × 59° field of view, 200,000 points per second, and a proven detection range of 70 m with 80% reflectivity.

Of key importance is its widespread support for the SLAM algorithm in the open-source robotics community (including Livox's own LIO-Livox odometry system) and solid experience in professional surveying and mapping applications. Numerous academic studies have validated its geometric accuracy. According to 3DMakerPro specifications, the Eagle uses this class of sensors. The FJD Trion P1 and P2 use sensors with corresponding specifications (200,000 points/s, 360° × 59° field of view, 70 m range). SHARE has confirmed that the S20/S20 SE uses Mid-360 directly, as documented on the Livox showcase page.

The Raven's published specifications—150,000 points/s, 360° × 40° vertical field of view, 50 m detection range—clearly indicate that it does not use a Livox Mid-360 . The narrower vertical field of view (40° vs. 59°) is the most significant difference in practice: it means the Raven captures less environmental detail per pass, particularly on the vertical axis. Scanning tall structures, capturing ceilings in interior scans, or working in tight spaces will require more overlapping passes and additional time. The lower point density (150,000 vs. 200,000) translates to a slightly lower level of detail per second, although this is less significant than the limited field of view.

This isn’t necessarily a deciding factor, as it’s thanks to a cheaper sensor that the 3DMakerPro reaches its $999 price point, but it’s a trade-off you should understand.

The LiDAR sensor directly impacts point cloud density, resistance to SLAM drift, and scanning reliability in challenging environments. Community members in 3DMakerPro's Raven and Eagle Facebook groups have highlighted this as their primary concern, and it's a legitimate concern.

3DMakerPro has not publicly disclosed the manufacturer or model of the Raven sensor (at least that I know of).

Another shortcoming is the missing IMU specification, as the IMU (inertial measurement unit) is critical for SLAM stability and drift control, especially in featureless environments such as long corridors, open fields, or tunnels.

What sets 3DMakerPro Raven apart?

The price is truly disruptive. For between $999 and $1,099 for the base Raven, you get a standalone LiDAR scanner with an AMOLED touchscreen, onboard processing, and Gaussian splatting output. No phone, no laptop, and no tethering required while scanning. The FJD Trion V4e LiDAR Kit, the closest budget competitor in the portable SLAM scanner market, requires an iPhone 15+ and costs over $4,000 (currently $4,299 on sale from $4,799). The SHARE C1 is targeting a similar prosumer audience via Kickstarter, but final pricing and delivery times have not yet been determined.

Two hours of battery life is a significant advantage over the Eagle's approximately one hour (according to 3DMakerPro's specifications, which list 60 minutes for the Eagle). You can realistically scan an entire building, both inside and out, without needing a power bank. The Raven also supports external power during scanning, which is handy if you accidentally leave it dead.

The Insta360 X4/X5 and RTK expansion allows Raven to adapt to more use cases. Those interested in managing their workflows using Insta360 for Gaussian splatting and RTK/PPK have customized upgrade paths available. I appreciate how this approach keeps the cost of entry low while also leaving room for more professional workflows.

It's completely autonomous. Unlike the FJD V4e (requires an iPhone 15+), the FJD P2 (requires a smartphone or tablet for real-time monitoring via the FJD Trion Scan app), and the SHARE S20/C1 line (requires the SHARE Capture app), the Raven operates completely autonomously thanks to its built-in 3.9" AMOLED screen and onboard memory. This is essential for field use in remote locations or for users who want a simpler, more streamlined workflow.

Where are the worries

The LiDAR sensor represents a significant step backwards from the competition. As previously described, the Raven's 150,000 points/sec, 40° vertical field of view, and 50m detection range place it below all other LiDAR scanners in this comparison. The narrower vertical coverage means more scan passes in complex environments and potentially weaker SLAM lock in spaces with vertical variations.

Community members in the 3DMakerPro Raven and Eagle user groups on Facebook have openly expressed this concern. The sensor appears to be a lower-quality unit, intended for low-end applications, and for workflows where laser performance is more important than camera performance, this represents a clear compromise.

No IMU specifications published. The IMU is essential for SLAM stability and drift control, and experienced users have reported its absence. But does that mean they don't use one (or it's simply not very effective), who knows?

3DMakerPro's software track record isn't great. Having spent a lot of time with Eagle Max and RayStudio, this is one area where expectations need to be realistic. Eagle launched in early 2025 with an ambitious software roadmap, with Gaussian Splatting processing scheduled for April 10, 2025, point cloud meshing for April 15, and panoramic image stitching for April 30, according to 3DMakerPro's RayStudio tutorial page. In practice, features have arrived much later than expected, and independent reviews (including a detailed review from 3Printr.com) have consistently described RayStudio as functional but not yet mature.

Stability issues, particularly on macOS, have been widely documented. The post-processing workflow still requires patience. The software has improved over the past year, but it's been a slow process, and since Raven shares the same software ecosystem, we should expect a similar trajectory rather than a polished beta-tester experience.

Let's just hope that Eagle and Hawk have made the necessary progress to make Raven a better launch!

RTK = real-time or just post-processing? The issue remains somewhat confusing with the 3DMakerPro product line. The official Eagle FAQ describes RTK as real-time kinematic positioning, but the RayStudio workflow tutorial on the 3DMakerPro blog shows that RTK data is applied as a post-processing step ("select the RTK option in the processing steps").

Community members have conflicting reports on whether true real-time RTK correction works reliably or whether it is actually PPK (post-processed kinematics).

If georeferenced accuracy is important to your workflow, it's worth checking with real user reviews (I hope I can provide you with a unit to review) before committing to the Raven RTK kit.

For comparison, both the FJD Trion line and the SHARE S20 RTK offer well-documented real-time RTK workflows with proven accuracy specifications, but at quite different price points.

Initial scan samples weren't impressive. Philipp Kreiser's (PrintedForFun / 3D Scanning Users Group) presentation video noted that the first published Raven scans didn't look particularly convincing. The pre-release hardware will improve with firmware and software updates, but currently, there's limited independent scan data available to evaluate real-world performance.

The 12MP cameras without HDR mean that colorized point clouds and Gaussian splat scenes won't match the visual quality you'd get from the Eagle's 48MP cameras with 8K HDR output, or the SHARE S20's dual 1-inch 16MP cameras with mechanical shutters. Where visual fidelity matters—virtual tours, presentation-quality Gaussian splats, real estate tours—this represents a significant downgrade.

Who is the crow actually addressing?

The Raven is firmly positioned as an entry-level device into the world of portable LiDAR scanning. Its objectives are:

For those switching from iPhone or iPad to LiDAR. If you've been using Polycam, SiteScape, or Scaniverse with your phone's built-in LiDAR and have reached the limits of what these tools can do, Raven represents a huge leap forward in terms of range, scan volume, point density, and workflow. At a price that doesn't require professional justification.

Enthusiasts, makers, and content creators who want to capture rooms, buildings, or outdoor environments for personal projects, game asset creation, Gaussian splatting experiments, or documentation. The standalone workflow and entry-level price of under $1,000 make this scanner somewhat of an impulse purchase, unlike any other portable LiDAR scanner.

Small businesses looking to explore virtual tours and spatial documentation without having to purchase professional surveying equipment. Real estate agents, event venues, and renovation companies may find Raven's spatial acquisition level "sufficient" for non-critical applications.

For professional surveyors, architects, or anyone working in BIM/CAD: The Raven is probably not the right tool for you. The FJD Trion P2 (post-processed accuracy of 1.2 cm, multi-SLAM fusion, HyperDense+ technology, dual 12 MP cameras, proven FJD Trion software ecosystem), the SHARE S20 (relative accuracy ≤1 cm, confirmed Livox Mid-360 sensor, dual 1-inch 16 MP cameras with mechanical shutters), or the 3DMakerPro Hawk (accuracy of 1.5 cm at 10 m, 480,000 points/s with multi-echo LiDAR, IP65 rating) all offer significantly better performance, albeit at correspondingly higher prices.

The conclusion

The 3DMakerPro Raven does something no other standalone portable LiDAR scanner has ever done: make the technology accessible for under $1,000. The tradeoffs are real and well-documented: a lower-spec LiDAR sensor with a narrower field of view, a shorter detection range, simpler cameras without HDR, and a still-maturing software ecosystem. But the value proposition at this price point is hard to ignore.

The question isn't whether the Raven is better than a $4,000+ scanner. It's not. The question is whether it's good enough to open the door to a new generation of users who might never have considered LiDAR scanning before. Based on the specs, price, and expansion path, the answer is probably yes, with the caveat that you need to have realistic expectations in terms of software refinement and scan quality compared to established competitors.