A 3DLOOK alternative that measures the garment

What does 3DLOOK do?

3DLOOK sells body measurement. The product it describes publicly is mobile body scanning: a shopper photographs themselves with a phone, and the system returns body measurements and a size recommendation derived from those photographs. For the current feature list, the supported regions and the data handling terms, read 3DLOOK's own site. This page is not maintained by them, and it does not summarise their pricing or their roadmap.

The input is a person. Almost everything below follows from that one fact.

What does ShirtMath do instead?

ShirtMath measures a garment. You lay a shirt flat, put a scale card in the frame, and photograph it. The scanner returns that shirt's flat measurements, and those numbers are then compared against published garment specifications across the catalogue to find shirts built to similar dimensions.

No photograph of a body enters that loop at any point. The subject of the picture is a t-shirt on a table.

The limits deserve stating before the benefits. Roughly half of scanner readings land within an inch of a tape measure taken on the same garment. Sleeve opening and bicep are the least reliable readings it produces. Anything the scanner cannot read confidently is left blank rather than estimated. The methodology page sets out how the comparison behind a match is built, and this page sits alongside the other fit technology comparisons.

Why does photographing a shirt change the privacy question?

A body scan produces data about a person. A garment scan produces data about a piece of cotton. Those two things sit in different places under privacy law, and they sit in different places in most shoppers' heads as well.

Measurements derived from photographs of a person can fall inside biometric or health-data privacy statutes in some jurisdictions. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act is the most frequently cited example, and several other US states have passed comparable rules since. Whether any particular body-scanning product is in scope is a question for that vendor's own legal disclosures and for a lawyer, and this page does not attempt to answer it on their behalf.

There is a practical version of the same point. A shopper who will not photograph themselves in close-fitting clothing on a retailer's website will often photograph a shirt from their own wardrobe without a second thought. The friction differs, not only the legal exposure.

Is virtual try-on the same as size recommendation?

No, and the two are confused constantly. Augmented-reality try-on renders a garment over an image of you. It answers a styling question: what does this colour do next to my skin, where does this hem sit, do I like the look of it at all. Measurement-based sizing compares numbers. It answers a fit question: is this shirt two inches wider across the chest than the one I already wear.

An overlay that looks convincing tells you very little about whether the shoulders will sit correctly, because the garment in the render is drawn onto you rather than fitted to you. A measurement comparison, in turn, tells you nothing about whether you will like the colour. They are different products solving different problems, and most shoppers need the fit answer before the styling answer is worth anything.

Which method answers which question?

Only the third row needs a picture of you. Two of the four are answerable from garment data alone, which is the gap this site works in.

What does a garment measurement actually settle?

It settles what a size label is hiding. Take the same letter across four published specification sheets.

A ladies' Gildan G500L Medium publishes a 17.5" chest. The unisex Mediums publish 20.0" to 20.5". That is a gap of two and a half to three inches on the same letter, and a full three inches at Large. "Medium" is not one garment. It is a label attached to whatever the cut happens to be.

Manufacturing tolerance on published specs runs roughly plus or minus 0.3" to 0.8", wider on garment-dyed styles, so treat any single figure as the centre of a small range rather than a promise. A three-inch difference survives that tolerance comfortably. A quarter-inch difference does not, and should not be used to choose between two shirts. Our guide to vanity sizing covers why letters drift between brands, and pit to pit measurement covers how the chest figure is taken.

A body scan cannot surface that table, because the variation lives in the garments rather than in the shopper. Accurate body numbers are still matched against a size chart at the end, and if the chart's Medium is three inches away from the next brand's Medium, the scan has not resolved the problem it was bought to resolve. The wider argument is set out in body measurement versus garment measurement.

When 3DLOOK is the better choice

Several situations, stated plainly.

1. You have nothing to measure — ShirtMath starts from a garment you already own and already like. If your wardrobe holds nothing that fits, there is no reference to scan, and measuring the body is the sensible starting point.
2. You need your own numbers — made-to-measure, tailoring, uniform programmes and anything cut to a person require body dimensions. A garment scanner cannot produce them, because it measures cloth on a table.
3. The category is structured — jackets, suiting and formalwear depend on shoulder, sleeve and drop taken on the body. Flat garment comparison is weakest exactly where construction is most three-dimensional.
4. You want body data across a customer base — a brand building a picture of who its customers actually are is asking a different question from a shopper matching one shirt. ShirtMath for brands works from catalogue measurements, which is a narrower job by design.
5. The product is not a shirt — shoe fit, sunglasses measurement and face-shape analysis are not things this site does from a photograph today, and no scan here claims otherwise. Our shoe and eyewear pages are reference material, not scanning products.

None of that is a criticism of body scanning. It is a description of two tools pointed at two different objects.

Where should you start?

If you own a shirt that fits and you want more shirts like it, start with the garment: it is already in the room, it needs no photograph of you, and its numbers are the only ones the next purchase has to match. If you do not own that shirt yet, a body measurement is the better first step, whether from a body-scanning vendor or from a tape and a patient friend.

Common questions