> since there isn't a bajillion high quality 3D models lying around on the internet to use as training data There aren't a bajillion high-quality 3D models of

> since there isn't a bajillion high quality 3D models lying around on the internet to use as training data There aren't a bajillion high-quality 3D models of everything, but there are an unbounded number of high-quality 3D models of some things, due to the existence of procedural mesh systems for things like foliage. You could, at the very least, train an ML model to translate images of jungles into 3D meshes of the trees composing them right now. Although I wonder if having a few very-well-understood object types like these, to serve as a base, would be enough to allow such a model to deduce more generalized rules of optics, such that it could then be trained on other object categories with much smaller training sets...