Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which link? Both seem to work for me at the moment.
Try viewing while logged out of GitHub
Works too
Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
41–50 of 81 posts
Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#42Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s how the bibtex author field is defined. You don’t get free choice here. As far as I’m aware bibtex defines and as the separator https://bibtex.eu/fields/author/
Yea but like... why? Typically you use human language operators to produce readable phrases, and this doesn't even approach readable english.
The answer is probably who knows since we are talking about software from 1985 which was only updated once since 1988 to clarify its licensing
Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically, what differentiateS a splat from standard photogrammetry is that it can capture things like reflections, transparency and skies. A standard photogram of (for example) a mirror would confuse the reflection in the mirror for a space behind the mirror. A photogram of a sheet of glass would likewise suffer. The problem is that any tool or process that converts splats into regular geometry produces plain old…
I've never been quite clear on how Splats encode specular (directional) effects. Are they made to only be visible from a narrow field of view (so you see a different splat for different view angles?) or do they encode the specular stuff internally somehow?
This is a good question. As I understand it, the only material parameters a splat can recognize are color and transparency. Therefore the first of your two options would be the correct one.
Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#45Can someone explain what a splat is? I did graphics programming 25 years ago, but haven't touched it since. I don't think I've ever heard this word before.
To add to the rest of the replies: color comes from spherical harmonics, which I'm sure you came across them (used traditionally for diffuse light or shadows, SuperTuxKart uses them)
Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#46Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#47I wonder how hard it would be to implement an extra processing step, to turn this to a more 'stylized low poly' look. Basically, the triangle count would be drastically smaller, but the topology would have to be crisp.
Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never been quite clear on how Splats encode specular (directional) effects. Are they made to only be visible from a narrow field of view (so you see a different splat for different view angles?) or do they encode the specular stuff internally somehow?
This is a good question. As I understand it, the only material parameters a splat can recognize are color and transparency. Therefore the first of your two options would be the correct one.
You can use spherical harmonics to encode a few coefficients in addition to the base RGB for each splat such that the rendertime view direction can be used to compute an output RGB. A "reflection" in 3DGS isn't a light ray being traced off the surface, but instead a way of saying "when viewed from this angle, the splat may take an object's base color, while from that angle, the splat may be white because the input image had glare"
This ends up being very effective with interpolation between known viewpoints, and hit-or-miss extrapolation beyond known viewpoints.
Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#49Re: Triangle splatting: radiance fields represented by triangles
#50This looks really nice, but I cant help to think this is a stop gap solution like other splatting techniques. It's certainly better than NERFs, where the whole scene is contained in a black box, but reality is not made up of a triangle soup or gaussian blobs. Most of the real world is made up of volumes, but can often be thought of as surfaces. It makes sense to represent the ground, a table, walls, etc with planes,…
A digital image is a soup, of RGB dots of various size.
Gaussian Splatting radically changed the approach to photogrammetry. Prior approaches to generate surface models, and mapping the captures to materials that a renderer would more or less rasterize with physically accuracy were hitting the ceiling of the technique.
NerF was also a revolution but is very compute intensive.
Even a browser, a mid range GPU, can render millions of splats at 60 frames per seconds. That's how fast it goes and less than a million dense scene can already be totally bluf the eye in most possible angles.
Splatting is the most advanced, promising and already delivered on the promise technique for photogrammetry. The limit is that can't do as much in term of modification to point clouds vs surface with great PBR attributes.