{"id":3539,"date":"2026-10-21T21:53:47","date_gmt":"2026-10-22T09:53:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/footworklab.net\/?p=3539"},"modified":"2026-10-22T15:02:20","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T03:02:20","slug":"posture-gait-analysis-scanner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/footworklab.net\/fr\/news\/3539\/","title":{"rendered":"One Session, Two Records: Posture Capture and Gait Analysis in the Same Scanner"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

About the author<\/strong> \u2014 FOOTWORK LAB is a manufacturer of foot assessment equipment and custom orthotic insoles, based in Ruichang, Jiangxi Province, China. Founded in 2014, with its own production plant since 2018. Certified to European Union and ISO quality system standards. See the factory<\/a> or view certification<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Most clinics end up buying posture capture and gait analysis as two purchases, in two rooms, on two appointments, and then wonder why the two sets of notes never quite line up.<\/strong> The client stands still for one session and walks for another, weeks apart, in different shoes, seen by whoever was free. The records are both honest and neither is comparable, because the only thing that makes two measurements mean something together is that they were taken under the same conditions, close in time, by the same hand.<\/p>\n

A combined session is not a marketing idea. It is a scheduling decision with technical consequences. When posture is captured and gait is recorded on the same platform within the same twenty minutes, the practitioner can ask a question that is otherwise unanswerable: does the asymmetry I see while the client stands survive when the client moves, or does it disappear the moment load starts travelling?<\/p>\n

We build the F5-LAB dynamic gait system, which pairs a pressure-sensing platform with camera posture capture and the analysis software that holds both records. That means this article is written by the people who would benefit from you choosing the combined route, so read it with that in mind. It is also written by people who have watched clinics buy a combined system and use only half of it, which is the more common failure and the one worth designing against.<\/p>\n

Two records, one body: the argument for a single session<\/h2>\n

Posture and gait are not two subjects. They are two states of the same arrangement of joints, muscles and habit. A standing record describes a position the body can hold indefinitely with relatively little muscular work. A walking record describes what the same body does when it has to hand its weight from one side to the other, repeatedly, at speed. Neither state is more true than the other, and a report that contains only one of them is a report about half a person.<\/p>\n

The clinical value of adjacency is comparison. If the standing record shows the pelvis level and the walking record shows a consistent difference in contact timing between sides, the two facts belong in one conversation. If they were captured three weeks apart, in different shoes, after a long day for one and a fresh morning for the other, the practitioner cannot tell whether the difference is a finding or an artefact of the schedule.<\/p>\n

There is a commercial argument as well, and it is the one that usually decides the purchase. A single appointment that produces two records is one slot, one explanation, one fee and one conversation with the client. Two appointments produce two of everything, and the second one is the one clients quietly cancel. Combining is not about doing more measurement; it is about not asking the client to come back for the second half of a story they have already heard the beginning of.<\/p>\n

The condition is that the software keeps the two records apart. A single blended score that mixes standing posture with walking data is worse than either record alone, because it hides which state produced which observation. What you want is two labelled records, timestamped, stored together, exportable separately \u2014 and a report that shows them side by side rather than averaged into a number nobody can interrogate.<\/p>\n

The posture record: what the camera captures while the client stands<\/h2>\n

The posture capture starts with the client standing still in a marked area, weight even, arms relaxed, gaze forward. The camera records the frontal and posterior view, and from those two images the software derives the observations that matter for a foot assessment: the level of the shoulders, the level of the pelvis, the line through the lower limb, and the rotation of each foot relative to the direction the client is facing.<\/p>\n

What the record can see is position. What it cannot see is why. A shoulder that sits higher on one side may reflect a habit of carrying a bag, a desk, a previous injury, or simply the way the client stood when the frame was taken. A pelvis that is not level may be a lasting feature of the way that person is built, or the result of standing on a slightly uneven surface for forty seconds. The camera records the geometry and nothing about the cause, which is exactly the boundary that makes the record usable.<\/p>\n

Two views are the minimum, and the reason is parallax. A single frontal image flattens depth, so a foot that is turned out looks shorter, and a shoulder that is rotated forward looks level. Capturing the same stance from behind as well gives the practitioner a second projection of the same body, and the two together are far more informative than either alone. Where the system supports it, repeat the capture once and compare the two frames: if the level of the pelvis moves between frames taken a minute apart, you are looking at a stance the client cannot hold steadily, which is itself worth noting.<\/p>\n

Record the conditions along with the images. Which view, which position on the platform, whether the client was barefoot, whether the clothing obscured the waist. A posture record without conditions is a picture, and pictures are read differently by every person who opens the file. Our own software attaches the session metadata automatically, but the operator still has to enter what the camera could not know: that the client had been standing for an hour before arriving, or that the left shoe had a worn heel.<\/p>\n

\"F5-LAB
FOOTWORK LAB F5-LAB dynamic gait system. Product photography of our own output; specifications are confirmed in writing before an order.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The gait record: what changes once the client walks<\/h2>\n

Walking changes the question. Standing, the body has one arrangement to hold. Walking, it has a sequence: accept load on one side, pass over it, push off, hand the weight across, and repeat. The pressure layer records that sequence as a set of regional loads over time, and the camera layer, where it is aimed at the walking area, records the posture that accompanies it. The result is a record of the body in motion rather than a record of the body at rest.<\/p>\n

Three things appear in the walking record that the standing record cannot show. The first is timing: how long each foot spends accepting load, and how that compares between sides. The second is the path of load across the sole during a step, which tells you whether the foot rolls through the middle of the contact area or takes a route along one edge. The third is variability, which only becomes visible when you have several passes to compare, and which is often the most useful number in the file.<\/p>\n

The gait capture also exposes the compensations that a standing position conceals. A client who stands with the feet turned out may walk with them pointing forward. A client whose standing posture looks level may show a consistent difference in contact timing once weight starts moving. Neither observation is a conclusion, but both are the kind of thing that a practitioner wants to see before deciding what to put under the foot.<\/p>\n

Keep the walking condition explicit. Barefoot on the platform, shod on the platform, and treadmill at a set speed are three different records, not one record with variations. Label them, store them separately, and never compare a barefoot walking record against a shod one without saying so in the sentence. Our system stores each capture with its condition attached, and the discipline of naming the condition is what makes the comparison legitimate six months later.<\/p>\n

Where the two records disagree, and why that is the useful part<\/h2>\n

In a well-run session the two records agree often enough to be reassuring and disagree often enough to be interesting. The disagreements fall into recognisable types, and each type points at a different next step.<\/p>\n

The first type is a posture that looks level while the walking record shows a clear difference between sides. This usually means the client can hold a symmetrical standing position when asked, but does not maintain it under load and time. That is a real observation about control rather than about structure, and it changes the conversation from what the foot is shaped like to what the body does with it when it gets tired.<\/p>\n

The second type is the reverse: an obvious tilt or rotation in the standing record that disappears in walking. This is common and usually benign in the sense that the standing position was a pose rather than a pattern. Clients who are asked to stand still for a camera tend to arrange themselves, sometimes unconsciously, into the position they think is being asked for. A single-frame posture record is therefore weakest exactly where it looks most convincing.<\/p>\n

The third type is disagreement caused by the equipment or the room, and it is the one to eliminate first. Camera framing that shifts between sessions, a platform position that changed when the room was rearranged, a different operator giving different instructions, clothing that hides the waist in one session and not the other. Before reading a disagreement as a finding, check whether the two sessions were captured under the same conditions. If they were not, the disagreement is a note about the protocol, not about the client.<\/p>\n

\"F5-LAB
FOOTWORK LAB F5-LAB dynamic gait system. Product photography of our own output; specifications are confirmed in writing before an order.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Running both captures in one appointment<\/h2>\n

The sequence that works in practice is short and always the same. Intake and explanation first, with the shoes on the table. Then the posture capture, because it is the fastest and because a client who has just walked into the room is still standing naturally. Then the standing pressure capture on the platform, in the same position, so the two standing records describe the same moment. Then the walking passes, with one discarded pass at the start, and the rest kept.<\/p>\n

Room layout decides whether this sequence feels calm or chaotic. The platform needs to sit where the camera can see both the standing area and the walking line without being moved between captures, and the screen needs to face the operator rather than the corridor. A clinic that has to reposition a camera between the posture and gait steps will, within a month, stop capturing one of them. If the room is tight, decide in advance which capture is the priority and design the layout around it.<\/p>\n

The operator script matters more than the hardware. The same words every time: where to stand, where to look, how many passes, when to stop. Clients take their cue from the operator’s certainty, and a hesitant instruction produces a hesitant walk. Write the script down, put it on the wall, and use it with every client, including the ones who have been through the session before.<\/p>\n

Data handling is the last practical piece and the first thing to decay. One folder per client, file names that carry the date and the condition, exports stored where a colleague can find them. The session produces two records, and if they are saved under names like “scan1” and “scan2” they will be unusable within a week. Our software exports both records with the session metadata attached; the naming habit is the clinic’s job, not the machine’s.<\/p>\n

Does the combined session fit your clinic?<\/h2>\n

Start with volume. If the practice sees a handful of assessment clients a week, a combined session is a specialty service and should be priced and scheduled like one. If the practice sees a steady flow of fitting appointments, the combined session is the default, and the question becomes whether one operator can run it without turning the appointment into a demonstration.<\/p>\n

Then look at who reads the output. A combined record is only worth capturing if the same person sees both halves. In a practice where posture is read by one practitioner and footwear by another, the two records will be filed in different systems and the adjacency is lost. The equipment does not create the joined-up reading; the routine does.<\/p>\n

Then apply the honest test: does having both records change what you do next? If the posture record never alters the specification and never alters the advice, it is costing you minutes in every appointment for a document nobody opens. If it changes the specification even occasionally \u2014 a different heel cup depth because the standing record showed the client loading one edge, a different review interval because the walking record showed a pattern the client could not feel \u2014 then it is earning its place.<\/p>\n

Finally, consider the sequence of purchase rather than the completeness of the set. A clinic can begin with the standing capture and the pressure record and add the walking element when the routine is established. Very few practices regret buying one capability and adding a second once they know what they do with it. Plenty regret buying a combined system and discovering that the appointment only has room for half of it.<\/p>\n

One more practical point about the first month. Whatever the routine is on day one, it will be the routine on day three hundred unless someone owns it. Name the person who is responsible for the sequence, for the file naming and for training the next operator, and give them the authority to shorten the protocol when the waiting room is full. A combined session that collapses under pressure into a single capture has not failed; it has simply told you which half of the record your clinic actually uses, which is useful information to have before the second system is ordered.<\/p>\n

\"F5-LAB
FOOTWORK LAB F5-LAB dynamic gait system. Product photography of our own output; specifications are confirmed in writing before an order.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n
\n

Does one session really produce two separate records?<\/h3>\n

Yes. The posture capture and the gait capture are stored as separate records with their own timestamps and conditions, and the report presents them side by side. They are not averaged into a single score, because a blended number hides which state produced which observation.<\/p>\n

How long does a combined session take?<\/h3>\n

The captures themselves are quick; the appointment is dominated by intake, explanation and the review of the two records with the client. Time it once with an operator who has never used the system \u2014 that measurement predicts daily use better than any specification.<\/p>\n

Can we start with posture capture and add gait later?<\/h3>\n

Yes, and for many clinics that is the sensible order. Begin with the standing record, learn what it changes in your decisions, and add the walking capture when the appointment has room for it. Tell us at the first order if a second capability is planned, so the software setup stays consistent.<\/p>\n

What should the client wear?<\/h3>\n

Clothing that leaves the waist and the line of the lower limb visible, and shoes that are easy to remove. Loose trousers are workable if they can be rolled up. Clothing that hides the pelvis limits what the posture record can show, and that limit should be written in the notes rather than ignored.<\/p>\n

Does the camera capture depend on the room?<\/h3>\n

It depends on consistent framing. The capture area needs to stay in the same place relative to the camera between sessions, because a shifted camera changes the geometry of the record. If the room is rearranged, re-mark the floor position before the next client.<\/p>\n

Can the walking capture be done on a treadmill?<\/h3>\n

Yes, and a set speed is a legitimate condition as long as it is labelled as one. Self-selected speed overground and a set treadmill speed are different records; storing them as the same thing produces comparisons that cannot be defended.<\/p>\n

What support comes with the system?<\/h3>\n

Each unit ships with a dedicated WhatsApp group, direct access to our engineers, remote assistance where the site allows it, and over-the-air updates for connected units. Every machine is tested for seven days before it leaves the factory, and the warranty runs twelve months on non-human damage with free replacement parts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

What we would do next<\/h2>\n

If you are weighing a combined session against two separate purchases, write down the last ten assessment clients and what you actually did with each record. That list will tell you more than a feature comparison. The F5-LAB dynamic gait platform<\/a> is the system we build for this sequence, the product overview<\/a> shows how it sits beside the standing-only systems, and our article on posture analysis with a foot scanner<\/a> covers what the camera can and cannot see. If you want the sequence reviewed against your room and your appointment length, send us the layout<\/a> and we will answer with the constraints rather than the brochure.<\/p>\n

This article is intended for professional and educational reference. It is not medical advice. Foot assessment equipment produces measurements and images; clinical interpretation and any decision about care remain the responsibility of a qualified professional. Certification scope is limited to the documentation we hold: European Union certification and ISO quality system certification.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Related reading<\/h2>\n