## 3 Results and Discussions
### Three-Dimensional Scanning of Sample 2
Conclusively, watertightness with medium detail (MW) and high level of simplification, i.e., 70%, may be selected as optimal levels for all modes of 3D scanning to achieve a good dimensional agreement between the real and digital models of S1 and S2, implying a considerable reduction in 3D scanning errors. Finally, the likelihood of obtaining few errors may be further minimized with texture and smoothness. Sharpness may or may not be employed, as per the findings from results for all modes of scanning both samples. However, the selection of sharpness, in addition to optimal levels of watertightness, simplification, texture, and smoothness, can only be justified for its positive impact on 3D scanning and 3D/4D printing with the help of a macro (visual) and micro (microscopy) examination of the 3D scanned objects and 3D printed objects, respectively. In this work, the macro examination of 3D scanned objects was already performed with various modes of 3D scanning. The micro examination of the 3D printed parts will be accomplished in the future. Of the ANVOVA tables for both samples, S1 and S2, UW was found to be an optimal level of watertightness along with a simplification of 70% simplification for only two modes of 3D scanning: mode D and mode A for Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. Mode D for sample 1 was not of paramount importance because it seems appropriate for Sample 1 to be modeled geometrically in 3D without being scanned. Likewise, mode D of 3D scanning for S2 also seems inappropriate due to the presence of non-texture with the additional drawback of the absence of smoothness. However, mode A of scanning Sample 2 was already recommended due to various interesting findings associated with it. For mode A, UW was found to be optimal with the texture option implying, that HW, MW, and LW resulted in higher scanning errors when compared to the errors from setting UW. UW is a level of watertightness that requires further improvements in scanning due to its open-loop scanning outcome. Generally, open-loop scanned data are never considered ready for additive manufacturing processes, or the 3D scanned model demands further steps to improve the scanned point cloud data. Luckily, mode A already has a built-in solution to this problem as a complete package with a high level of simplification, i.e., 70%, and smoothness. Both features of mode A can sufficiently handle the further processing requirements of 3D scanned data in terms of point cloud adjustments and noise reductions in the data. Therefore, the apparent concern with UW for mode A is actually and amazingly fixed rather covered by the simultaneous presence of high simplification and smoothness for mode A. This may be considered a likely reason for the suitability of mode A for the 3D scanning of complex objects such as Sample 2. Based on the current research findings, mode A of 3D scanning should be conclusively recommended for scanning complex objects when compared to the other modes (B, C, and D) of 3D scanning. This recommendation for mode A can also be confirmed by various earlier studies [3; 32] due to its capability to remove errors in the postprocessing phase of 3D scanning. Watertightness, simplification, and smoothness were already defined earlier in Section 2 as the post-scanning/post-processing 3D scanning factors with significant contributions towards mitigating possible 3D scanning errors. Therefore, the current study is in good agreement with the previous work. Moreover, it can also be found from the ANOVA Tables for S2 that the error PCRs (i.e., the statistical error) were found to be higher for all modes of 3D scanning, i.e., B, C, and D, except for mode A with reference to Sample 2. Similarly, the error PCR was much lower than the PCR of watertightness and significantly higher than the PCR of simplification for mode A. With mode A, the simplification PCR was found to be extremely low towards reducing the 3D scanning error.