4 ms·

Awesome to see the default format for the dataset be Gazebo, but doesn’t the material rendering system not compare to photoreal results from Blender? Interesti

Awesome to see the default format for the dataset be Gazebo, but doesn’t the material rendering system not compare to photoreal results from Blender? Interesting choice.

blenderdt 5y ago
It has nothing to do with photorealistic rendering. The pictures of the scanned objects are put on the 3D model.
dotancohen 5y ago
> Interesting choice. Things like this are often not "a choice", as in twenty engineers did not sit in a room and discuss the merits and drawbacks of each format. Rather, they are "a doing", as in the intern tasked with scanning the object used the first tool that appeared in his DDG search.
- bawolff 5y ago
  That's still a choice.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    The point is that there was likely very little consideration involved. Thus, there is no need to ponder why one format was chosen over another.
    - yreg 5y ago
      You are just making that up though…
      - teddyh 5y ago
        Unless anyone was there to witness it, all anyone can do is speculate, i.e. make things up.
      - dotancohen 5y ago
        Did you ignore the "are often" line in my original comment? I'm talking about the process in general.
- weird-eye-issue 5y ago
  > that appeared in his DDG search The most unreasonable thing in your comment and that's saying a lot
SotCodeLaureate 5y ago
These are just standard OBJ files with diffuse textures only and trivial material settings (all white). Additional there is some metadata that specifies that the same data is to be used as displayable model and collision geometry. So, essentially, this data is highly portable, photoreal aesthetics is not really a goal. (Also see some notes in the paper, e.g. "Limitations of the Dataset".)
- pj_mukh 5y ago
  Well now I'm curious, is the claim that photoreal-ness doesn't matter when training network for the real world. Weird.
  - SotCodeLaureate 5y ago
    Removing lighting before object recognition may be a separate step, yes. But in this case it's just that their goal is to scan objects, shapes as such, and not intrinsic properties of their constituent materials (such as specularity).
radarsat1 5y ago
I think it's great to see Gazebo acknowledged here. I've often wondered why it's not more often considered for the basis of RL systems, as it is designed for robotic simulation, and supports multiple physics engines.

Awesome to see the default format for the dataset be Gazebo, but doesn’t the material rendering system not compare to photoreal results from Blender? Interesting choice.

blenderdt 5y ago

It has nothing to do with photorealistic rendering. The pictures of the scanned objects are put on the 3D model.

dotancohen 5y ago

> Interesting choice. Things like this are often not "a choice", as in twenty engineers did not sit in a room and discuss the merits and drawbacks of each format. Rather, they are "a doing", as in the intern tasked with scanning the object used the first tool that appeared in his DDG search.

bawolff 5y ago
That's still a choice.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  The point is that there was likely very little consideration involved. Thus, there is no need to ponder why one format was chosen over another.
  - yreg 5y ago
    You are just making that up though…
    - teddyh 5y ago
      Unless anyone was there to witness it, all anyone can do is speculate, i.e. make things up.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      Did you ignore the "are often" line in my original comment? I'm talking about the process in general.
weird-eye-issue 5y ago
> that appeared in his DDG search The most unreasonable thing in your comment and that's saying a lot

SotCodeLaureate 5y ago

These are just standard OBJ files with diffuse textures only and trivial material settings (all white). Additional there is some metadata that specifies that the same data is to be used as displayable model and collision geometry. So, essentially, this data is highly portable, photoreal aesthetics is not really a goal. (Also see some notes in the paper, e.g. "Limitations of the Dataset".)

pj_mukh 5y ago
Well now I'm curious, is the claim that photoreal-ness doesn't matter when training network for the real world. Weird.
- SotCodeLaureate 5y ago
  Removing lighting before object recognition may be a separate step, yes. But in this case it's just that their goal is to scan objects, shapes as such, and not intrinsic properties of their constituent materials (such as specularity).

radarsat1 5y ago

I think it's great to see Gazebo acknowledged here. I've often wondered why it's not more often considered for the basis of RL systems, as it is designed for robotic simulation, and supports multiple physics engines.