@Bertram G Even that relies on the fitter's knowledge of anatomy and ability to correctly and reproducibly palpate the anatomical markers.

@Bertram G Not to be condescending but physiology and anatomy are different studies. There are plenty of studies in the healthcare provider literature about the lack of inter-practitioner reliability of palpatory skill. Admittedly, these are major landmarks used by cycling fitters but the ability of a single fitter to position sensors in a reproducible manor is very low. The reliability of two fitters positioning sensors in the same location would be nearly non-existent. Fitters discuss the difference a couple of mm of saddle height make. The use of technology is a step in the right direction toward reproducibility but flawed. If one positions the sensor a mm off here and there the fitting would theoretically give different results. Hence the complaints of people who have been fit by multiple fitters and come away with significantly different results. The interpretation of the software's imaging is not significantly different than the interpretation of the visual or gestalt of the cyclist riding without the software. It may distill away distractions thereby simplifying the gestalt.

IMO that would depend on where you were located and the availability of a technologically advanced bike fitter.