[HN Gopher] The iPhone 15 Pro's Depth Maps
___________________________________________________________________
The iPhone 15 Pro's Depth Maps
Author : marklit
Score : 333 points
Date : 2025-06-04 17:57 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (tech.marksblogg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tech.marksblogg.com)
| caseyohara wrote:
| Cool article. I assume these depth maps are used for the depth of
| field background blurring / faux bokeh in "Portrait" mode photos.
| I always thought it was interesting you can change the focal
| point and control the depth of field via the "aperture" _after_ a
| photo is taken, though I really don 't like the look of the fake
| bokeh. It always looks like a bad photoshop.
|
| I think there might be a few typos of the file format?
|
| - 14 instances of "HEIC"
|
| - 3 instances of "HIEC"
| marklit wrote:
| Fixed those. Cheers for pointing them out.
| dheera wrote:
| I think the reason it looks fake is because they actually have
| the math wrong about how optics and apertures work, and they
| make some (really bad) approximations but from a product
| standpoint can please 80% of people.
|
| I could probably make a better camera app with the correct
| aperture math, I wonder if people would pay for it or if mobile
| phone users just wouldn't be able to tell the difference and
| don't care.
| dylan604 wrote:
| most people just want to see blurry shit in the background
| and think it makes it professional. if you really want to see
| it fall down, put things in the foreground and set the focal
| point somewhere in the middle. it'll still get the background
| blurry, but it gets the foreground all wrong. i'm guessing
| the market willing to pay for "better" faked shallow depth of
| field would be pretty small.
| dheera wrote:
| Yeah that's why I didn't write the app already. I feel like
| the people who want "better faked depth" usually just end
| up buying a real camera.
| tene80i wrote:
| Sample of one, but I'm interested. I used to use a real
| camera and now very rarely do. But I also often find the
| iPhone blurring very fake and I've never understood why.
| I assumed it was just impossible to do any better, given
| the resources they throw at the problem. If you could
| demonstrate the difference, maybe there would be a
| market, even if just for specific use cases like
| headshots or something.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Lytro had dedicated cameras and inferior resolution so
| they failed to gain enough traction to stay viable. You
| might have a better chance being that it's still on the
| same device, but the paid for app would be a push.
|
| However, you could just make the app connect to localhost
| and hoover up the user's data to monetize and then offer
| the app for free. That would be much less annoying than
| showing an ad at launch or after every 5 images taken. Or
| some other scammy app dev method of making freemium apps
| successful. Ooh, offer loot boxes!!!
| vanviegen wrote:
| > and think it makes it professional.
|
| That's a bit cynical. Blurring the background can make the
| foreground object stand out more, objectively (?) improving
| the photo in some cases.
| dylan604 wrote:
| that seems like a really strained attempt at being
| offended. sensor size has a direct affect on a camera's
| ability of shooting shallow depth of field. in the realm
| of photography, the only way to have a large enough
| sensor with lens combination to shoot shallow DoF, you
| had to buy professional gear. to that point, look at the
| affect of the 5D on the video world. more than once i've
| heard people say "oh, it looks professional" in response
| to images with shallow DoF even though nothing about it
| was professional. nobody paid for my equipment, nobody
| paid me for the images/shoot, and it was absolutely not
| done with hired help with a crew. it just happened to
| have a shallow DoF, and that's where it registered in
| people's mind.
|
| but please, mansplain the benefits of an artistic
| styling's benefit in directing the viewers gaze using
| shallow DoF
| semidror wrote:
| Would it be possible to point out more details about where
| Apple got the math wrong and which inaccurate approximations
| they use? I'm genuinely curious and want to learn more about
| it.
| dheera wrote:
| It's not that they deliberately made a math error, it's
| that it's a _very_ crude algorithm that basically just
| blurs everything that 's not within what's deemed as the
| subject with some triangular, Gaussian, or other
| computationally simple kernel.
|
| What real optics does:
|
| - The blur kernel is a function of the shape of the
| aperture, which is typically circular at wide aperture and
| hexagonal at smaller aperture. Not gaussian, not
| triangular, and the kernel being a function of the depth
| map itself, it does not parallelize efficiently
|
| - The blurring is a function of the distance to the focal
| point, is typically closer to a hyperbola; most phone
| camera apps just use a constant blur and don't even account
| for this
|
| - Lens aberrations, which are often thought of as defects,
| but if you generate something _too_ perfect it looks fake
|
| - Diffraction effects happen at sharp points of the
| mechanical aperture which create starbursts around
| highlights
|
| - When out-of-focus highlights get blown out, they blow out
| more than just the center area, they also blow out some of
| the blurred area. If you clip and _then_ blur, your blurred
| areas will be less-than-blown-out which also looks fake
|
| Probably a bunch more things I'm not thinking of but you
| get the idea
| semidror wrote:
| Thanks!
| xeonmc wrote:
| re: parallelization, could a crude 3Dfft-based
| postprocessing achieve a slightly improved result
| relative to the current splat-ish approach while still
| being a fast-running approximation?
|
| i.e. train a very small ML model on various camera
| parameters vs resulting reciprocal space transfer
| function.
| jjcob wrote:
| The iPhone camera app does a lot of those things. The
| blur is definitely not a Gaussian blur, you can clearly
| see a circular aperture.
|
| The blurring is also a function of the distance, it's not
| constant.
|
| And blowouts are pretty convincing too. The HDR sources
| probably help a lot with that. They are not just clipped
| then blurred.
|
| Have you ever looked at an iPhone portrait mode photo?
| For some subjects they are pretty good! The bokeh is
| beautiful.
|
| The most significant issue with iPhone portrait mode
| pictures are the boundaries that look bad. Frizzy hair
| always ends up as a blurry mess.
| qingcharles wrote:
| The Adobe one has a pretty decent ML model for picking
| out those stray hairs and keeping them in focus. They
| actually have two models, a lower quality one that keeps
| things on device and a cloud one that is more advanced.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Any ideas what the Adobe algorithm does? It certainly has
| a bunch of options for things like the aperture shape.
| willseth wrote:
| If it's all done in post anyway, then it might be a lot
| simpler to skip building a whole camera app and just give
| people a way to apply more accurate bokeh to existing photos.
| I would pay for that.
| lcrs wrote:
| There are a few projects now that simulate defocus properly
| to match what bigger (non-phone camera) lenses do - I hope to
| get back to working on it this summer but you can see some
| examples here: https://x.com/dearlensform
|
| Those methods come from the world of non-realtime CG
| rendering though - running truly accurate simulations with
| the aberrations changing across the field on phone hardware
| at any decent speed is pretty challenging...
| vanviegen wrote:
| I'm pretty happy with the results my Pixel produces (apart
| from occasional depth map errors). Is Google doing a better
| job than Apple with the blurring, or am I just blissfully
| ignorant? :-)
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| There's Reality Composer for iOS which has a LIDAR-enabled
| specific feature allowing you to capture objects. I was bummed to
| find out that on non-LIDAR equipped Apple devices it does not in
| fact fall back to photogrammetry.
|
| Just in case you were doing 3d modeling work or photogrammetry
| and wanted to know, like I was.
| WalterGR wrote:
| Polycam does fall back.
|
| I've also heard good things about Canvas (requires LiDAR) and
| Scaniverse (LiDAR optional.)
| zevon wrote:
| I've had pretty good success with https://3dscannerapp.com -
| it's mostly intended for people with access to iDevices with
| LiDAR and an Apple Silicon Mac and in this combination can
| work completely offline by capturing via the iDevice and
| doing the processing on the Mac (using the system API for
| photogrammetry). AFAIK, there are also options for using just
| photos without LiDAR data and for cloud processing but I've
| never tried those.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I'd really like to use Polycam, but it's unclear what
| features are free and what's paid.
|
| I'd be fine with paying for it, but it's clear that they want
| to employ basic dark patterns and false advertising.
| H3X_K1TT3N wrote:
| I've had the most success doing 3d scanning with Heges. The
| LiDAR works pretty well for large objects (like cars), but you
| can also use the Face ID depth camera to capture smaller
| objects.
|
| I did end up getting the Creality Ferret SE (via TikTok for
| like $100) for scanning small objects, and it's amazing.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Oh! $100 is a great price. I always see it at around $300-350
| and I haven't bought it...
| H3X_K1TT3N wrote:
| I take it back; I double checked and it was more like $180.
| Still worth it IMO.
| klaussilveira wrote:
| Does it scan hard surfaces pretty well, or does it mangle the
| shapes? Think car parts.
| H3X_K1TT3N wrote:
| I did a test scan on a small object (1:12 scale doll), and
| it seems to capture fine details really well, but I can't
| say for sure that it would be suitable for things like car
| parts; you would have to try it and see I suppose.
| itsgrimetime wrote:
| site does something really strange on iOS chrome - when I scroll
| down on the page the font size swaps larger, when I scroll up it
| swaps back smaller. Really disorienting
|
| Anyways, never heard of oiiotool before! Super cool
| layer8 wrote:
| You can make autostereograms from those.
| onlygoose wrote:
| LIDAR itself has much much lower resolution that the depth maps
| shown. It has to be synthesized from combined LIDAR and regular
| camera data.
| mackman wrote:
| Yeah I thought LIDAR was used for actual focus and depth map
| was then computed from the multi-camera parallax.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| anyone combining these with photos for feeding to gpt4o to get
| more accurate outputs (like for calorie counting as a typical
| example)?
| cenamus wrote:
| Calorie counting as never gonna be accurate, just how would you
| know what's hiding inside a stew or curry? How much oil or
| meat? How much dressing is on the salad? There's a reason
| people do caloriy counting with raw ingredients (or pre bought
| stuff) and not by wheighing and measuring plates of food
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| I know that (and I'm not building a calorie counter). The
| question is about whether 4o can read photos better with
| depth maps or derived measurements provided alongside the
| original image and the example was chosen as it's inaccurate
| but could perhaps be improved with depth map data (even if
| not to the point of "accurate")
| duskwuff wrote:
| The answer to that question is "probably not".
|
| First: the image recognition model is unlikely to have seen
| very many depth maps. Seeing one alongside a photo probably
| won't help it recognize the image any better.
|
| Second: even if the model knew what to do with a depth map,
| there's no reason to suspect that it'd help in this
| application. The lack of accuracy in a image-to-calorie-
| count app doesn't come from problems which a depth map can
| answer like "is this plate sitting on the table or raised
| above it"; they come from problems which can't be answered
| visually like "is this a glass of whole milk or non-fat" or
| "are these vegetables glossy because they're damp or
| because they're covered in butter".
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Depth map can be used to measure dimensions of objects,
| not only relative positions
| criddell wrote:
| It's probably accurate enough for most people most of the
| time.
|
| The labels on your food are +/-20%. If you are analyzing all
| of your meals via camera, it's probably not too far off that
| over a week.
| cenamus wrote:
| I find that hard to believe, those calorie measurements are
| pretty good.
|
| And 20% per week is the difference between maintaining your
| wheight and gaining 1.6kg of pure fat a month. (Or losing
| that much)
| globular-toast wrote:
| The only reason one might care about an accurate calorie
| counter is for longevity. But the vast majority of people who
| count calories are doing it for weight control. They don't
| need an accurate calorie count.
|
| All you need to know is whether your weight is trending how
| you want it to trend and, if not, adjust calories
| appropriately. I feel like a clever enough model could take
| pictures of food, your heart rate and your daily weigh in and
| suggest ways to achieve your weight goal, like "have less
| fries" etc.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| > *describes a top of the line system
|
| > I'm running Ubuntu 24 LTS via Microsoft's Ubuntu for Windows on
| Windows 11 Pro
|
| this is like hearing someone buying yet another automatic super
| car.
| mmmlinux wrote:
| Yeah, section seemed like some weird brag.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| It's common practice in the sciences to include details about
| any equipment used in your lab notes.
| BobbyTables2 wrote:
| True, but a physicist wouldn't normally document the shoes
| they were wearing.
|
| The details he documented don't seem relevant for what he
| did and nothing performed would seem to stress even a low
| end ancient system.
|
| Definitely felt like a brag to me.
|
| Only thing that makes me think otherwise is he also
| documented the line counts of the scripts. Seems more like
| a bizarre obsession with minutiae... (would have been more
| meaningful to document the git commit/branch for a GitHub
| project instead of the line count!!)
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| Agreed, if he really felt obligated to mention all he
| needed to say was desktop is a 9950X w 1080 ti and 98GB
| of ram. At most maybe adding that he used WSL on windows
| 11 but even that seems minimally relevant and just
| dressing.
| globular-toast wrote:
| He has a water-cooled rig. Dude probably likes computers.
| I've always got time for people who want to talk about
| things they like (of course it helps if I like them too).
| Go to Tik Tok if you want ultra-optimised chunks of junk
| entertainment.
| throitallaway wrote:
| He's running an Nvidia 1080 GPU, a non-XD AMD processor, and
| Windows 11. None of that is a brag.
| BobbyTables2 wrote:
| My system with a non-accelerated iGPU and 16GB DDR4 RAM
| would differ...
| just-working wrote:
| Cool article. I read the title as 'Death Maps' at first though.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Me too! I wanted a world map of where iphone 15 users died :(
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| That could be approximated pretty well just combining income
| data and age data.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Or by drawing a red circle around the United States
| labelled "~95%"
| astrange wrote:
| There's a country called China with a lot more people
| than the US.
| Uncorrelated wrote:
| Other commenters here are correct that the LIDAR is too low-
| resolution to be used as the primary source for the depth maps.
| In fact, iPhones use four-ish methods, that I know of, to capture
| depth data, depending on the model and camera used. Traditionally
| these depth maps were only captured for Portrait photos, but
| apparently recent iPhones capture them for standard photos as
| well.
|
| 1. The original method uses two cameras on the back, taking a
| picture from both simultaneously and using parallax to construct
| a depth map, similar to human vision. This was introduced on the
| iPhone 7 Plus, the first iPhone with two rear cameras (a 1x main
| camera and 2x telephoto camera.) Since the depth map depends on
| comparing the two images, it will naturally be limited to the
| field of view of the narrower lens.
|
| 2. A second method was later used on iPhone XR, which has only a
| single rear camera, using focus pixels on the sensor to roughly
| gauge depth. The raw result is low-res and imprecise, so it's
| refined using machine learning. See:
| https://www.lux.camera/iphone-xr-a-deep-dive-into-depth/
|
| 3. An extension of this method was used on an iPhone SE that
| didn't even have focus pixels, producing depth maps purely based
| on machine learning. As you would expect, such depth maps have
| the least correlation to reality, and the system could be fooled
| by taking a picture of a picture. See:
| https://www.lux.camera/iphone-se-the-one-eyed-king/
|
| 4. The fourth method is used for selfies on iPhones with FaceID;
| it uses the TrueDepth camera's 3D scanning to produce a depth
| map. You can see this with the selfie in the article; it has a
| noticeably fuzzier and low-res look.
|
| You can also see some other auxiliary images in the article,
| which use white to indicate the human subject, glasses, hair, and
| skin. Apple calls these portrait effects mattes and they are
| produced using machine learning.
|
| I made an app that used the depth maps and portrait effects
| mattes from Portraits for some creative filters. It was pretty
| fun, but it's no longer available. There are a lot of novel
| artistic possibilities for depth maps.
| snowdrop wrote:
| For method 3 that article is 5 years old, see:
| https://github.com/apple/ml-depth-pro?tab=readme-ov-file
| heliographe wrote:
| > but apparently recent iPhones capture them for standard
| photos as well.
|
| Yes, they will capture them from the main photo mode if there's
| a subject (human or pet) in the scene.
|
| > I made an app that used the depth maps and portrait effects
| mattes from Portraits for some creative filters. It was pretty
| fun, but it's no longer available
|
| What was your app called? Is there any video of it available
| anywhere? Would be curious to see it!
|
| I also made a little tool, Matte Viewer, as part of my photo
| tool series - but it's just for viewing/exporting them, no
| effects bundled:
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/matte-viewer/id6476831058
| lxgr wrote:
| > Yes, they will capture them from the main photo mode if
| there's a subject (human or pet) in the scene.
|
| One of the example pictures on TFA is a plant. Given that,
| are you sure iOS is still only taking depth maps for photos
| that get the "portrait" icon in the gallery? (Or have they
| maybe expanded the types of possible portrait subjects?)
| heliographe wrote:
| It will capture the depth map and generate the semantic
| mattes (except in some edge cases) no matter the subject if
| you explicitly set the camera in Portrait mode, which is
| how I would guess the plant photo from the article was
| captured.
|
| My previous comment was about the default Photo mode.
|
| If you have a recent iPhone (iPhone 15 or above iirc) try
| it yourself - taking a photo of a regular object in the
| standard Photo mode won't yield a depth map, but one of a
| person or pet will. Any photo taken from the Portrait mode
| will yield a depth map.
|
| You can find out more about this feature by googling
| "iPhone auto portrait mode".
|
| Apple's documentation is less helpful with the terminology;
| they call it "Apply the portrait effect to photos taken in
| Photo mode"
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/edit-portrait-mode-
| ph...
| lxgr wrote:
| > [...] if you explicitly set the camera in Portrait
| mode, which is how I would guess the plant photo from the
| article was captured.
|
| Ah, that makes sense, thank you!
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Seems crazy to run an object recognition algorithm in
| order to decide if depths should be recorded.
|
| I'd thought that would be heavier than just record the
| depths.
| brookst wrote:
| Probably a pretty light classifier on the NPU. Doesn't
| even have to care about what particular object it is,
| just if it matches training data for "capture depth map".
| tough wrote:
| there was recently a 64 gates NN implementation in C
| shared on HN that was interesting for stuff like this
| tgma wrote:
| Can method 4 be used by a security application to do liveness
| detection?
| jjcob wrote:
| That's what FaceID does.
| tgma wrote:
| Obviously -- that is not my question though. I was curious
| if that data is exposed via API or within the image for
| front camera as well, so a third party app can do it.
| tough wrote:
| most kyc apps have you record live video, i'm assuming
| they can then infer those depth maps from the video
| source regardless of your phone capabilities?
| Someone wrote:
| I think so. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfound
| ation/captu..., https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avf
| oundation/captu... show how to get a depth map.
| oxym0ron wrote:
| One thing worth noting: LIDAR is primarily optimized for fast
| AF and low-light focusing rather than generating full-res depth
| maps.
| arialdomartini wrote:
| Just wonder if depth maps can be used to generate stereograms or
| SIRDS. I remember having playing with stereogram generation
| starting from very similar grey-scaled images.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| They do. The UI to do this is apparently only included in the
| VisionOS version of the Photos app. But you can convert any
| photo in your album to "Spatial Format" as long as it has a
| Depth Map, or is high enough resolution for the ML
| approximation to be good enough.
|
| It also reads EXIF to "scale" the image's physical dimensions
| to match the field of view of the original capture, so wide-
| angle photos are physically much larger in VR-Space than
| telephoto.
|
| In my opinion, this button and feature alone justifies the
| $4000 I spent on the device. Seeing photos I took with my Nikon
| D7 in 2007, in full 3D and correct scale, triggers nostalgia
| and memories I've forgotten I had for many years. It was quite
| emotional.
|
| Apple is dropping the ball on not making this the primary
| selling-point of Vision Pro. It's incredible.
| kccqzy wrote:
| I might be missing something here but the article spends quite a
| bit discussing the HDR gain map. Why is this relevant to the
| depth maps? Can you skip the HDR gain map related processing but
| retain the depth maps?
|
| FWIW I personally hate the display of HDR on iPhones (they make
| the screen brightness higher than the maximum user-specified
| brightness) and in my own pictures I try to strip HDR gain maps.
| I still remember the time when HDR meant taking three photos and
| then stitching them together while removing all underexposed and
| overexposed parts; the resulting image doesn't carry any
| information about its HDR-ness.
| jasongill wrote:
| I thought the same about the article and assumed I had just
| missed something - it seemed to have a nice overview of the
| depth maps but then covered mostly the gain maps and some
| different file formats. Good article, just a bit of a
| meandering thread
| twoodfin wrote:
| Note you can turn off the display-enhanced HDR in Photos
| settings.
| kccqzy wrote:
| That only does it in the Photos app. What about online in
| WebViews? What about third party apps like Instagram? The
| only surefire way of turning it off everywhere is low power
| mode.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Christ, that liquid cooled system is totally overkill for what he
| does. I'm so glad I don't bother with this stuff anymore, all to
| run his preferred operating system in virtualization because
| Windows uses his aging Nvidia card better
|
| Chimera
|
| The old gpu is an aberration and odd place to skimp. If he
| upgraded to a newer nvidia gpu it would have linux driver support
| and he could ditch windows entirely
|
| And if he wasn't married to arcgis he could just get a mac studio
| eurekin wrote:
| I was generally flabbergasted by that "My Workstation" section
| existence in the article at all...
|
| Is it in any way relevant?
| naikrovek wrote:
| I imagine it is there to stop people asking about it. But who
| knows.
| tarwin wrote:
| "flabbergasted" ? That's quite a strong reaction. It's
| somewhat normal for nerdy mc-nerdfaces, which the writer
| definitely is (in all the good ways), to tell people about
| their hardware. Or at least it used to be? Seemed pretty
| geek-norm to me even if it was jarring.
| os2warpman wrote:
| I've used, and this is not an exaggeration, practically every
| single open-source and commercially-licensed GIS application
| ever released on Linux, Windows, and macOS. Certainly every
| single one listed on Wikipedia.
|
| ArcGIS is the best general purpose solution.
|
| If doing mission planning including flight guidance for aerial
| operations, FalconView is the least worst.
|
| Telling an experienced GIS user to drop ArcGIS is like telling
| a somehow-still-living B.B. King to stop using Gibson guitars.
|
| And by "better supported" he probably meant "isn't a huge pain
| in the ass that breaks every other kernel upgrade due to dkms
| or the package manager shitting the bed" when it comes to
| Nvidia drivers. Doesn't matter if it's a 1080ti or a 5090.
| heliographe wrote:
| Yes, those depth maps + semantic maps are pretty fun to look at -
| and if you load them into a program like TouchDesigner (or
| Blender or Cinema 4D whatever else you want) you can make some
| cool little depth effects with your photos. Or you can use them
| for photographic processing (which is what Apple uses them for,
| ultimately)
|
| As another commenter pointed out, they used to be captured only
| in Portrait mode, but on recent iPhones they get captured
| automatically pretty much whenever a subject (human or pet) is
| detected in the scene.
|
| I make photography apps & tools (https://heliographe.net), and
| one of the tools I built, Matte Viewer, is specifically for
| viewing & exporting them: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/matte-
| viewer/id6476831058
| kawsper wrote:
| Aha! I wonder if Apple uses this for their "create sticker"
| feature, where you press a subject on an image and can extract it
| to a sticker, or copy it to another image.
| lxgr wrote:
| That must be the ML-only approach, since it works even on
| photos not taken on an iPhone.
| cloud_herder wrote:
| Off the topic at hand but this site is elegantly simple... I
| wonder what static site generator he uses?
| jonathonlui wrote:
| At the bottom of page:
|
| > Copyright (c) 2014 - 2025 Mark Litwintschik. This site's
| template is based off a template by Giulio Fidente [1]
|
| The theme is for the Pelican [2] static site generator.
|
| [1] https://github.com/gfidente/pelican-svbhack
|
| [2] https://getpelican.com/
| ziofill wrote:
| Every time I glance at the title my brain reads "death maps"
| pzo wrote:
| Truedepth from FaceID since iphone 13 got significantly worse -
| its very bumpy and noisy - we had to do significant denoising and
| filtering to make it useful again for 3d scanning
|
| Lidar is a let down. First I would expect that Lidar would
| trickle down to non-pro devices. Come on apple FaceID got
| introduced in iphone X and next year it was in all iphone models.
| Lidar was introduced in iphone 12 pro and still only pro devices
| have it. As 3rd party dev it makes me reluctant to make any app
| using it if it limits my user base by 50%.
|
| I'm also disappointed they didn't improve FaceID or Lidar in the
| last ~5 years (Truedepth still only 30fps, no camera format to
| mix 30fps depth + 120fps rgb, still big latency, Lidar still low
| resolution, no improvement to field of view)
| praveen9920 wrote:
| I am waiting for a day when all phone hardwares defaulting to
| Gaussian splatting to take 3d images without expensive sensors.
| It may be computationally expensive but probably cheaper than
| adding expensive sensors and adding more weight.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-05 23:01 UTC)