logoalt Hacker News

jofzartoday at 11:46 AM1 replyview on HN

https://youtu.be/eyAVWH61R8E?t=3m53s

I would say Superman's quality didn't suffer for it.

I would say cost is probably the most expensive part it's also just like "why bother", it's not CG, it's not "2d filming" so it's just niche, like the scenarios you would actually need this are very low.


Replies

cubefoxtoday at 12:29 PM

That's interesting. 192 cameras is certainly expensive. Though they are doing 4DGS, with movement, so they have to capture every frame from different angles at the same time. I assume 3DGS for static environments (locations) would be a lot easier in terms of hardware. E.g. a single drone could collect photos for an hour and then they could create arbitrary simulated camera movements that couldn't be filmed conventionally. But again, the quality would have to be high in most cases. The nature of the Superman scene (some sort of hologram) is more forgiving, as it is inherently fake-looking, which helps excuse artifacts slipping through.