Something’s way off with these numbers. The page says it encodes video at 640MB/s which is quite large even for 4D data and doesn’t match the filesize of the demo splat (7.4MB / 2sec, or ≈3.4MB/s).
In fact they say the raw file size of the demo splat was only 427MB, so maybe the 640MB/s was a statement about encode speed? Why write it that way instead of “this demo splat was encoded in 0.6sec” or even just “the time to produce the original splat took longer than the time to encode this video format”?
A gaussian gif. Coming to porn sites soon. The file format name works for them. But imagine whole movies shot in this format. The fly-on-the-wall fantasy of movies, without being locked in place for the whole shot. Narrative possibilities like being able to examine just how close the Tyrannosaurus Rex is to your rear view mirror. Clues in a mystery only visible on rotation. Hidden bonus scenes.
I hope this catches on just to be able to watch the evolution of cameras to capture it.
Do you know what kind of compression ratios you get out of curiosity? Presumably it would be lower than this format (because this format is meant to be lossy not lossless) but very curious as a baseline.
24 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 43.6 ms ] threadIn fact they say the raw file size of the demo splat was only 427MB, so maybe the 640MB/s was a statement about encode speed? Why write it that way instead of “this demo splat was encoded in 0.6sec” or even just “the time to produce the original splat took longer than the time to encode this video format”?
I hope this catches on just to be able to watch the evolution of cameras to capture it.
I suggest removing "novel" from the title unless you wish to seriously disappoint some people.
https://webgpureport.org/
What is up with LLMs and "iff"?