35 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 44.6 ms ] thread
So this is the secret sauce behind Cinematic mode. The fake bokeh insanity has reached its climax!
I understand AI for reasoning, knowledge, etc. I haven't figured out how anyone wants to spend money for this visual and video stuff. It just seems like a bad idea.
> photorealistic 3D representation from a single photograph in less than a second
This is incredibly cool. It's interesting how it fails in the section where you need to in-paint. SVC seems to do that better than all the rest, though not anywhere close to the photorealism of this model.

Is there a similar flow but to transform either a video/photo/NeRF of a scene into a tighter, minimal polygon approximation of it. The reason I ask is that it would make some things really cool. To make my baby monitor mount I had to knock out the calipers and measure the pins and this and that, but if I could take a couple of photos and iterate in software that would be sick.

This is great for turning a photo into a dynamic-IPD stereo pair + allows some head movement in VR.
That is really impressive. However, it was a bit confusing at first because in the koala example at the top, the zoomed in area is only slightly bigger than the source area. I wonder why they didn't make it 2-3x as big in both axes like they did with the others.
Impressive but something doesn't feel right to me.. Possibly too much sharpness, possibly a mix of cliches, all amplified at once.
Can someone ELI5 what this does? I read the abstract and tried to find differences in the provided examples, but I don't understand (and don't see) what the "photorealistic" part is.
Is there a link with some sample gaussian splat files coming from this model? I couldn't find it.

Without that that it's hard to tell how cherry-picked the NVS video samples are.

EDIT: I did it myself, if anyone wants to check out the result (caveat, n=1): https://github.com/avaer/ml-sharp-example

In Chapter D.7 they describe: "The complex reflection in water is interpreted by the network as a distant mountain, therefore the water surface is broken."

This is really interesting to me because the model would have to encode the reflection as both the depth of the reflecting surface (for texture, scattering etc) as well as the "real depth" of the reflected object. The examples in Figure 11 and 12 already look amazing.

Long tail problems indeed.

(comment deleted)
The paper is just a word salad and it's not better than previous sota? I might be missing a key element here.
I note the lack of human portraits in the example cases.

My experience with all these solutions to date (including whatever apple are currently using) is that when viewed stereoscopically the people end up looking like 2d cutouts against the background.

I haven't seen this particular model in use stereoscopically so I can't comment as to its effectiveness, but the lack of a human face in the example set is likely a bit of a tell.

Granted they do call it "Monocular View Synthesis", but i'm unclear as to what its accuracy or real-world use would be if you cant combine 2 views to form a convincing stereo pair.

So Deckard got lucky that the picture enhancement machine allucinated the correct clue? But that was boundto happen 6 years ago, no AI yet.