by hirako2000 | 2025-06-05 20:44:26+00:00
I'm unsure whether it is me, but one of us is confused about the representation of a 2D image with a 3D scene. it's absolutely correct that a digital (2d) image is a grid of pixels. We can call it a soup if you want. An audio file, our text document are soups too.

A 3D scene (the digital representation) is structure that can't be reduced to a simple grid. At least it better not to or it wouldn't look great from almost all angles.

Back to the splats...

Gaussian Splatting is a technique designed to tackle what seemed like impossible or at least prove extremely challenging with 3D scene reconstruction. The authors took a radically different approach and demonstrated feasibility. I haven't meant anybody who would look at a gaussian splatting reconstruction of a scene, and claim another method would look better. Or even could look better. Maybe some day, but as of 2025 there isn't.

On the voxel definition. I don't see vowel as encompassing any (as in all) 3d structure representation. I mean by that voxel is a definition.. A good one. But not every representation fit into that definition so we better watch out with what we infer about anything that doesn't fit in.

Imo gaussian splats do not form a voxel. But, let's say they do. So what? No idea how that's relevant to my point which is that gaussian splatting (voxel or not voxel) is a superior technology to any other for 3d reconstructions to date. I even caveated the cases where this method would be totally unhelpful. As of now editing splats is barely a thing (Super splats is super, but all we may do is remove splats) Some software can fuse, even adjusts properties of the splats, areas of splats, but these editing solutions are at their infancy, so they just don't count.

Your point that triangles can be combined into larger flat surfaces and optimized for rendering is a valid, but it doesn't help with the fact that non gaussian splatting methods, including the much slower nerf approach are inferior in the quality (let's say fidelity) they all produce.

Your argument doesn't discuss, compare, or even mention limitations faced by all the traditional mesh-based approaches.

3DGS, I'm not selling the thing just making it clear, is able at its current advancement of the method: to rasterize so efficiently that a millions of splats scene can render at 60 FPS on a mid-range GPU. (As t least it does on my laptop).

All that with the most accurate representation of lighting, reflection. Of whatever the camera was able capture really. Novel inference is just an approximation it doesn't invent anything unless some generative ML is plugged in, faked in, plastered all over so that the word Ai gets mentioned.

I don't think that's me..I think you are confusing the method and parts of the method. Gaussian Splatting is not a technique of generating novel views off some captured data.

Here is the situation: Most click bait articles or even GitHub repos will splash that aspect as if gaussians splatting is about generating the novel views. I should read the paper again but it isn't what I see in the discovery.

But still, let's say it is. On that front it may not outperforms nerf I don't know, it may still be the state of that art, but that's very slow, almost impractical for most workstations, and, doesn't outperform 3DGS on about everything other front.

Your argument that it is not close to how reality is, totally irrelevant again. Even contrary to what CG in general has demonstrated many times. We don't need the concept, what is captures, how things are represented, or how things are displayed to match reality more closely. That's usually the best way to fail, to attempt to compute reality as we believe it to be. Some would even argue with you: what reality are you talking about. We still don't have a clue what reality is.

All we know is that we seem to perceive things a certain way. Our brain may play a movie in there based on that. .it doesn't matter what's there. perception, then tricking the eyes or our neurons is all we have to focus on to make reconstruction valid.

But it's funny, actually the gaussians are based on optical functions. The blending of multiple layers of light wave is also a natural phenomenon. For what we know.

Anyhow, there is a lot of confusion out there about gaussian splats. I suspect not many people understand this tech but many are talking loud about it, confusing everyone else.

I hope you don't see my response as for sake of arguments, your reply was a good read, elegant, with a tone of authority on the question but I invite you to check 3DGS again (yourself not in the news).

Edit: I have no considered the voxel method you've shared. So not claiming gaussian splatting is superior to that, will check the claims though that wouldn't be the first..