[HN Gopher] HumanRF: High-Fidelity Neural Radiance Fields for Hu...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       HumanRF: High-Fidelity Neural Radiance Fields for Humans in Motion
        
       Author : Keats
       Score  : 49 points
       Date   : 2023-05-15 12:06 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (synthesiaresearch.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (synthesiaresearch.github.io)
        
       | mdrzn wrote:
       | Can't wait for a The Sims version where you can "upload yourself"
       | just with a selfie. Gaming will become very personalized.
        
         | aperrien wrote:
         | Sounds kind of like Nintendo Mii's, Which were on the 3DS and
         | WiiU in 2012.
        
         | posterboy wrote:
         | Lol, adding a mugshot was enabled in EA's NHL 2000'ish. Didn't
         | look good to be honest and hasn't made a difference.
        
       | rpaddock wrote:
       | The 1981 cult classic movie Looker becomes real.
       | 
       | Do we have the understanding of neuro anatomy today to make a
       | Light Ocular-Oriented Kinetic Emotive Responses (L.O.O.K.E.R.)
       | device? We certainly have the technology.
       | 
       | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/?ref_=kw_li_i
        
       | magixx wrote:
       | Given their setup of 120 to 160 cameras to capture the
       | performances, the results seem kinda just "meh". While it's neat
       | that they were able to generate 3D models from all that data,
       | it's also not very surprising. Maybe their data processing
       | methods are more impressive than their end results. It reminds me
       | of the bullet time rigs used for The Matrix over 20 years ago
       | except I don't think they were creating 3D models of people.
        
         | gorkish wrote:
         | I don't quite think you fully understand the nature of NeRF
         | reconstruction. I believe being dismissive of this technology
         | is extremely shortsighted.
        
         | somethingsome wrote:
         | Their results are clearly 'meh' given the number of inputs, in
         | [0] they use only 2-4 cameras in real-time to achieve the same
         | or better quality (see their supplementary material). In [1] is
         | a video view synthesis generated by 4 cameras.
         | 
         | [0] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9590541
         | 
         | [1] https://youtu.be/ONO_bc6vpf0
        
         | VikingCoder wrote:
         | ...yeah, but there was no interpolation happening in the
         | original The Matrix. Every single frame we saw corresponded to
         | a single camera that took a photo.
         | 
         | New works like this one allow interpolation.
         | 
         | It's fair to ask if this is similar to what we saw in the
         | Matrix sequels, where I believe they used different solutions.
         | But again, I think the Matrix sequels mostly used entirely CG
         | actors...? Not interpolation of recorded acting.
        
         | kranke155 wrote:
         | They are generating NERFs out of people in motion and that is
         | novel.
         | 
         | I work in film VFX (related) and the tech that was used for the
         | matrix was nowhere near this.
         | 
         | I dare say you might be underinformed about this topic.
        
           | SantalBlush wrote:
           | What is your opinion on the future of film and acting given
           | the trajectory of AI and tech like this? Do you see
           | significant changes to the way movies will be shot, or to the
           | level of involvement of human actors in film?
        
             | kranke155 wrote:
             | I'm a lowly worker but.
             | 
             | Not really ? Film acting is a delicate art. And it's 1000x
             | faster than computer animation. You can film a cheap film
             | in 3 weeks maybe, on a tight schedule. The actors will be
             | able to deliver what you need.
             | 
             | Animating the equivalent film would cost you something
             | between 1-3 years.
             | 
             | So no I don't see a way that any of this will affect film
             | actors. We already have fully functional digi doubles, they
             | just don't use NERFs.
             | 
             | Pointing a camera at something / someone interesting is
             | still somewhere around 1000x more efficient than computer
             | animation. I don't see a near or mid future where this
             | changes.
        
               | Valgrim wrote:
               | I think the appeal in this NeRF tech in in the ability to
               | use both real capture information, like traditional
               | filmmaking, AND the ability to reframe, refocus,
               | recompose images, like in 3d scenes.
        
         | mustacheemperor wrote:
         | The closest technology I had previously seen to this was MS'
         | volumetric video capture for "holoportation" and 3D video
         | recording at their SF Reactor facility and this seems like a
         | significant improvement[0]. That also used an array of cameras
         | in a studio setting but the resulting color and model quality
         | wasn't close to as accurate and sharp as these examples.
         | 
         | Are there other examples of similar tech in use at a comparable
         | level of quality in recent history? Against any comparable end
         | results I've personally seen, it looks very impressive.
         | 
         | [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mixed-reality/capture-
         | studio...
        
       | notjustme wrote:
       | This is actually really impressive. Extrapolate this 12 months...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-05-15 23:01 UTC)