[amelius]

I don't like that it uses only a single photo. This means it is going to make up a lot of stuff. E.g. if I show it a photo of a poster, then it will make that poster 3D. With only two photos that problem would already be solved.

[bring-shrubbery]

Yeah I completely agree, but I think this model solves a different problem. AFAIK it's specifically there for the case where you only have one photo, but still need a 3D gaussian splat scene.

[andybak]

I haven't tried that specific case but - are you sure? It does get a lot of stuff right from context. I think it would probably depend how much of the frame, the poster took up.

[deanva]

More reference images from different angles is always going to give more accurate information in 3D. From a single 2D image there is a lot of ambiguity in the context. Several different shapes in 3D can be represented in identical ways in 2D. Additional context like lighting shadows etc helps. But more real signal from more images will always be better

[andybak]

I'm not saying it wouldn't be - because that's obvious.

[deanva]

Agreed, wasn't arguing just trying to add additional information in case it isn't obvious to anyone

[amelius]

Maybe, but what is wrong with wanting real depth instead of "made up depth"? One extra photo mostly solves that.

[andybak]

1. There's many use cases where only a single photo is available

2. There are many models similar to Sharp that do accept multiple photos - but Sharp is trying to solve a specific problem. If you have multiple photos - don't use Sharp.