4 ms·

Would love for an artist to provide some input, but I imagine this could be really good if it generates models that you can edit or start from later . Or, just

• doctorpangloss 2y ago
  > for an artist to provide some input Sure, the results are excellent. > Or, just throw a PS1 filter on top and make some retro games There's so many creative ways to use these workflows. Consider how much people achieved with NES graphics. The biggest obstacles are tools and marketplaces.
  • testfrequency 2y ago
    I question that you’re actually an 3D artist. I’m an artist (as is my partner) and we both agree this looks better than most examples..but it still looks incredibly lackluster, poorly colored, and texturally continues to have weird uncanny smoothness to it that is distracting/obviously generated. I don’t have time to leave a longer reply, and I still need to read over their entire white paper later tonight, but I’m surprised to see someone who claims to be an artist be convinced that this is “incredible”.
• raytopia 2y ago
  Unless the topology is good it may not be worth it.
• dorkwood 2y ago
  Sure. The paper doesn't show topology, UVs or the output texture, so we're left to assume the models look something like what you'd find when using photogrammetry: triangulated blobs with highly segmented UV islands and very large textures. Fine for background elements in a 3D render, but unsuitable for use in a game engine or real-time pipeline. In my job I've sometimes been given 3D scans and asked to include them in a game. They require extensive cleanup to become usable, if you care about visual quality and performance at all.