[bhouston]

I 100% agree with:

- cleaning up noisy GuassianSplats is useful. There are often stragglers floating around in space that need to get deleted.

- compression/optimizing them is useful.

This being a cleanup and compression tool makes sense, but I guess I don't call that an "editor."

I guess I was more arguing against the idea that this is a viable "editor" where one can combine and manipulate in more radical ways Gaussian Splats. The current technological approach doesn't make this a feasible use case.

[ovenchips]

Coming very soon is:

- Copy & Paste: e.g. delete a tree and fill the hole with a copied patch of grass

- Color Adjustments: tinting, brightness, etc.

If these aren't editing ops, I don't know what is. :) Sure, you _could_ go back and recapture photogrammetry or rerun training, but that's super costly in terms of time. SuperSplat lets you make simple edits quickly and easily.

[jobigoud]

In theory if you delete something you have to recompute global illumination and remove cast shadows in the immediate environment of the removed object, but that information is baked in the gaussian splats. I think that's the kind of limitation the parent comment is talking about.

[ovenchips]

To be as accurate as possible, yes, you need to consider lighting/shadows. But trust me, in many circumstances, you can copy+paste gaussians and it looks 'good enough'. It depends on the scene and the edit you want to make.

[TaylorAlexander]

And the use case!

[ilkke]

Not that different to doing the equivalent edit in Photoshop, I'd argue. Quote often 'lical' edits are good enough

[hombre_fatal]

Take a picture or movie. Now edit it with image or movie editing software. You have the same problem.

Yet this comment tree thinks it’s a novel observation that makes the tool useless.