# Unexpected behaviour remeshing in Surface Toolbox

**URL:** <https://discourse.slicer.org/t/unexpected-behaviour-remeshing-in-surface-toolbox/42471>\
**Category:** Support\
**Created:** [April 7, 2025, 4:06pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/unexpected-behaviour-remeshing-in-surface-toolbox/42471 "2025-04-07T16:06:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evaherbst](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/evaherbst/32/65595_2.png) [@evaherbst](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/evaherbst)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2025, 4:06pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/unexpected-behaviour-remeshing-in-surface-toolbox/42471/1 "2025-04-07T16:06:33Z")

</div>

Hi all,

I was playing around with remeshing models, and I realized that if I do uniform remesh, with the same settings, and apply it twice, it shrinks on each run.

Here I applied it around 5-6 times to show the shrinkage:

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/uploads/slicer/original/3X/e/e/ee9341ea5aa9f90f8466e81fd57bff9f46c2c76c.png)

I know you usually would not remesh twice with the same settings, but this was just to illustrate the issue, it also happens with other settings.  
I was wondering if this means there is some issue with the remeshing.

Thank you,  
Eva

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![muratmaga](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/muratmaga/32/3622_2.png) [@muratmaga](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/muratmaga)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2025, 7:32pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/unexpected-behaviour-remeshing-in-surface-toolbox/42471/2 "2025-04-07T19:32:42Z")

</div>

If you are feeding the remeshed model iteratively as the input, I can see this happening. I suspect the operation alters the geometry a little bit, and subsequent runs on the same model increases the effect and makes it noticeable compared to the original?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lassoan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/lassoan/32/13_2.png) [@lassoan](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/lassoan)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2025, 2:15pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/unexpected-behaviour-remeshing-in-surface-toolbox/42471/3 "2025-04-08T14:15:57Z")

</div>

All resampling/remeshing operations are inherently lossy. In your workflow, always try to minimize the number of times you run lossy operations.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evaherbst](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/evaherbst/32/65595_2.png) [@evaherbst](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/evaherbst)\
**Post date:** [April 25, 2025, 4:19pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/unexpected-behaviour-remeshing-in-surface-toolbox/42471/4 "2025-04-25T16:19:41Z")

</div>

Thanks both! Yes the more iterations the worse it is - I do not intend to do a lot of interations in the end, I just noticed sometimes several iterations are nice for a good resampling outcome (upsampling first, then remshing) but the lossy-ness is too much of a problem and I found an alternative pipeline