6 ms·

Yes, they talk about this in the article and that’s exactly what they did.

• rjh29 9mo ago
  It wasn't clear to me how much this was intentional vs. being the limits of the technology at the moment.
  • cubefox 9mo ago
    I guess the technology still has some quality limitations, otherwise we would already see it in mainstream movies, e.g. to simulate smooth camera motions beyond what is achievable with video stabilization. It's much more difficult to achieve 4K quality that holds up on a movie theater screen, without visible artifacts, than to do an artistic music video.
    • jofzar 9mo ago
      https://youtu.be/eyAVWH61R8E?t=3m53s https://youtu.be/eyAVWH61R8E?t=3m53s I would say Superman's quality didn't suffer for it. I would say cost is probably the most expensive part it's also just like "why bother", it's not CG, it's not "2d filming" so it's just niche, like the scenarios you would actually need this are very low.
      • cubefox 9mo ago
        That's interesting. 192 cameras is certainly expensive. Though they are doing 4DGS, with movement, so they have to capture every frame from different angles at the same time. I assume 3DGS for static environments (locations) would be a lot easier in terms of hardware. E.g. a single drone could collect photos for an hour and then they could create arbitrary simulated camera movements that couldn't be filmed conventionally. But again, the quality would have to be high in most cases. The nature of the Superman scene (some sort of hologram) is more forgiving, as it is inherently fake-looking, which helps excuse artifacts slipping through.