3 ms·
It's just really horrible camera work. Rolling the camera like that only makes sense when it corresponds with acceleration, but here every corner has a lot of c
by nawgz 3y ago
It's just really horrible camera work. Rolling the camera like that only makes sense when it corresponds with acceleration, but here every corner has a lot of camera roll and the amount is not correlated with the movement. That induces motion sickness, which is why it feels bad to look at despite excellent image quality.
A piece of commentary I'm less sure of is that there seems to be a total lack of motion blur, which is not what we've come to expect out of video
- londons_explore 3y agoI think the 'bad' camera work is because the camera route is probably hard coded coordinates in a python script, and someone has done trial and error to try and find some set of paths that don't pass through stuff...
- nawgz 3y agoIndeed, but that path code should just keep the perspective upright to avoid causing motion sickness
- jrk 3y agoThis is just a raw result of many frames strung together from a view synthesis technique, with an arbitrary, programmer-designed camera path. Neither of these issues is fundamental to the technique: - The camera path could be anything, and nicer ones could be easily designed by an artist - Motion blur is just a matter of supersampling in time. You actually don't want blur in the base reconstruction of individual views, as that would mean loss of detail when you were sitting still. In short, this video is not meant to show the output you'd actually want for an application (which might be different for a movie vs. VR vs. something else), but just to distill many outputs from a view synthesis algorithm into a form easily digestible by a human reviewer.
- nawgz 3y agoRight, I fully agree with you, I was just trying to explain my perception of why it doesn’t look like a video when the outputs are clearly fantastic and high fidelity.