2 ms·

> Generating high-quality images without obtrusive artifacts is a much harder problem, and Photosynth didn't even try to solve it. That's not really true, ther

> Generating high-quality images without obtrusive artifacts is a much harder problem, and Photosynth didn't even try to solve it. That's not really true, there are lots of ways to blend the points/pixels/images together from different viewpoints, including the illumination changing - this looks like more of a refinement in compression/volumetric representation instead of generating geometry and having view dependent textures or some other technique. You can see in the video that some things like the water shift as the view changes in a very soft way, and some things end up represented with more transparency. The results look good, but it might accurate to say that the article is way off in its claims instead of the paper, although the paper fails to mention photosynth as a citation as far as I could see.

teraflop 6y ago
> That's not really true, there are lots of ways to blend the points/pixels/images together from different viewpoints Of course there are, but (as far as I recall) Photosynth didn't use any of them; it only projected the original images on top of a point cloud. In any case, that's kind of my point; the rendering step is where the interesting research has been happening, not the camera pose reconstruction process which is trivially easy in comparison. > although the paper fails to mention photosynth as a citation as far as I could see. Photosynth was Microsoft's implementation of the same technology that was described in the "Photo Tourism" paper from 2006, which the NeRF-W paper does cite. Naturally, it makes more sense for other researchers work to refer to the original academic literature rather than the commercialized product.