4 ms·

You are missing where this is coming from. Many of the core papers for this came from Meta's VR team (codec avatars), Apple ML (Spatial Compute) and Nvidia - c

by gmerc 3y ago

You are missing where this is coming from. Many of the core papers for this came from Meta's VR team (codec avatars), Apple ML (Spatial Compute) and Nvidia - companies deeply invested in VR/Spatial compute. It's clear that they see it as a key technology to further their interests in the space, and they are getting plenty of free help: After being open sourced in May last year, there were 79 papers overall published on the topic. It's more than 150 this year, more than one a day, advancing this "dead end" forward. A small selection: https://animatable-gaussians.github.io/ https://animatable-gaussians.github.io/ https://nvlabs.github.io/GAvatar/ https://nvlabs.github.io/GAvatar/ https://research.nvidia.com/labs/toronto-ai/AlignYourGaussians/ https://research.nvidia.com/labs/toronto-ai/AlignYourGaussia... https://github.com/lkeab/gaussian-grouping https://github.com/lkeab/gaussian-grouping

jerf 3y ago
Goals aren't results. Maybe gaussian splatting will be the wave of the future and in 10 years it'll be the only graphics tech around. In the meantime, if it isn't, it will hardly be the first promising new graphics technology to turn out to be completely unsuited for all the things people hoped for. Most of what you linked to appears to correspond to what I intuitively described as them being an output format rather than useful directly; the last paper appear to go in the other direction to extract information from them but again doesn't function on the splats directly. The actual work isn't being done in the gaussians themselves, and the interesting results are precisely in what is not being done through the splats... but pointing that out explicitly that's not how you get funding nowadays. Two otherwise-identical proposals, but one that sings the praises of the buzzwords while the other is phrased to be critical of it, will have very different outcomes.

by gmerc 3y ago

jerf 3y ago

Goals aren't results. Maybe gaussian splatting will be the wave of the future and in 10 years it'll be the only graphics tech around. In the meantime, if it isn't, it will hardly be the first promising new graphics technology to turn out to be completely unsuited for all the things people hoped for. Most of what you linked to appears to correspond to what I intuitively described as them being an output format rather than useful directly; the last paper appear to go in the other direction to extract information from them but again doesn't function on the splats directly. The actual work isn't being done in the gaussians themselves, and the interesting results are precisely in what is not being done through the splats... but pointing that out explicitly that's not how you get funding nowadays. Two otherwise-identical proposals, but one that sings the praises of the buzzwords while the other is phrased to be critical of it, will have very different outcomes.