201–210 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You... you must have been quite some 5 year old.
Lol. Def not for 5 year olds but it's about exactly what I needed How about this: Take a lot of pictures of a scene from different angles, do some crazy math, and then you can later pretend to zoom and pan the camera around however you want
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn’t you just use iphone pros for this? I developed an app specifically for photogrammetry capture using AR and the depth sensor as it seemed like a cheap alternative. EDIT: I realize a phone is not on the same level as a red camera, but i just saw iphones as a massively cheaper option to alternatives in the field i worked in.
A single camera only captures the side of the object facing the camera. Knowing how far away that camera facing side of a Rubik's Cube help if you were making educated guesses(novel view synthesis), but it won't solve the problem of actually photographing the backside. There are usually six sides on a cube, which means you need minimum six iPhone around an object to capture all sides of it to be able to then freely m…
Hi, I'm David Rhodes, Co-founder of CG Nomads, developer of GSOPs (Gaussian Splatting Operators) for SideFX Houdini. GSOPs was used in combination with OTOY OctaneRender to produce this music video. If you're interested in the technology and its capabilities, learn more at https://www.cgnomads.com/ or AMA. Try GSOPs yourself: https://github.com/cgnomads/GSOPs (example content included).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you expect someone to tailor a custom explanation, when they don’t know your level of mathematical understanding, or even your level of curiosity. You don’t know what a Gaussian blur does; do you know what a Gaussian is? How deeply do you want to understand? If you’re curious start with the Wikipedia article and use an LLM to help you understand the parts that don’t make sense. Or just ask the LLM to provide…
There's a Corridor Digital video being shared that explains it perfectly. With very little math. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cetf0qTZ04Y
Be sure to watch the video itself* - it’s really a great piece of work. The energy is frenetic and it’s got this beautiful balance of surrealism from the effects and groundedness from the human performances. * (Mute it if you don’t like the music, just like the rest of us will if you complain about the music)
Similarly, the music video for Taylor Swif[0] (another track by A$AP Rocky) is just as surrealistic and weird in the best way possible, but with an eastern european flavor of it (which is obviously intentional and makes sense, given the filming location and being very on-the-nose with the theme). 0. https://youtu.be/5URefVYaJrA
I wonder what will be the state of cinema/series/video clips in 30 years? Will singers/rappers give up sentences completely and just mention names of emojis? Will we have to use screens at 576hz to be able to watch acclerated videos without seeing a constant blur?
I guess most kids from today would fall asleep before the end of the generic of Twin Peaks or the opening scene of Fargo.
It certainly moves around a lot!
It certainly looks like the tech and art style here are indissociable. Not only the use of Gaussian Splats made such extreme camera movement possible, one can be argued that it made them necessary.
Pause the video and notice the blurriness and general lack of details. But the frantic motion doesn't let the viewer focus on this details, most of them hidden by a copious amount of motion blur anyways.
To me it is typical of demos, both as in the "demoscene" and "tech demo" sense, where the art style is driven by the technology, insisting on what it enables, while at the same time working around its shortcomings. I don't consider it a bad thing of course, it leads to a lot of creativity and interesting art styles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (Evercoast) used 56 RealSense D455s. Our software can run with any camera input, from depth cameras to machine vision to cinema REDs. But for this, RealSense did the job. The higher end the camera, the more expensive and time consuming everything is. We have a cloud platform to scale rendering, but it’s still overall more costly (time and money) to use high res. We’ve worked hard to make even low res data look awe…
You may have explained this elsewhere, but if not—-what kind of post processing did you do to upscale or refine the realsense video? Can you add any interesting details on the benchmarking done against the RED camera rig?
I assume they stuck with realsense for proper depth maps. However, those are both limited to a 6 meters range, and their depth imaging isn't able to resolve features smaller than their native resolution allows (gets worse after 3m too, as there is less and less parallax among other issues). I wonder how they approached that as well.
Hi, I'm David Rhodes, Co-founder of CG Nomads, developer of GSOPs (Gaussian Splatting Operators) for SideFX Houdini. GSOPs was used in combination with OTOY OctaneRender to produce this music video. If you're interested in the technology and its capabilities, learn more at https://www.cgnomads.com/ or AMA. Try GSOPs yourself: https://github.com/cgnomads/GSOPs (example content included).
In the near term, it could be very useful for sports replays. The UFC has this thing where they stitch together sequences of images from cameras all around the ring, to capture a few seconds of '360 degree' video of important moments. It looks horrible, this would be a huge improvement.