> Anyway, this doesn't seem to allow any sort of dynamic lighting whatsoever, but for scans of existing places, such as house tours, street views and so on, this seems super promising.

So this method can only really be used for static scenes made from a point cloud?

I remember 10 years ago, a company called Euclideon revealed a demo[1] of a rendering technique (they called it "Unlimited Detail Real-Time Rendering") that put nearly every other rasterization technique of the time to shame. However, the major issue with the demo was that it only showed a static scene with zero dynamic lighting. I don't think they ever revealed the "secret sauce" of how it works, but it seems to have similar limitations to this new process, or at least that's what I expect considering it can't handle something as simple as a dynamic mesh.

It was extremely hyped up in certain areas, but over a decade later this technology isn't really used in any mainstream rendering engines because it only works for static scenes.

I hate to disparage new rendering techniques, but this really feels like a repeat of what happened back then. What exactly is different in 3D Guassian Splatting? Can it be used in any dynamic scenes in real-time at all? Does it provide any significant advantages from this older system?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrBR_4FohSE

Ruben Fro is doing some cool stuff with animated gaussian splats: https://twitter.com/Ruben_Fro

Think of them as point clouds + lighting. Relighting is viable. Procedural deformation is viable. Animation is just a case of transforming sub-groupings.

Collisions might be a bit trickier but you can always derive a low-res collision mesh from the input data and use that as a proxy.

It's early days at the moment and people are still exploring the possibilities.

Thank you for sharing that. Those images have dissuaded my pessimism a bit. They prove at the very least the technique can be used in some non-static scenes.

The splats are pretty easy to manipulate. At least as easy as triangles. It’s just that there has not been much attention paid to them historically. So, there are no content pipelines yet.

Euclideon's method probably uses fine-grained acceleration structures and LoDs that are too expensive to rebuild in real-time. At least, that's how I took it.

It was probably similar to UE5's Nanite, definitely possible 10 years ago with custom tech and very constrained assets.

Definitly not. It was just a sparse voxel engine with model instancing. Didn‘t go anywhere and for good reason. Nanite does build on some very advanced and creative poly reduction tech and adds streaming to take it to the next level.

There's hype, over-hype and then there's Euclideon "Unlimited Detail". The narrator (owner?) of the video needs to tone it waaaaaay down.

Just a shower thought so to speak, but could you combine this technique with something similar to precomputed radiance transfer[1]?

You'd have to take multiple pictures of the scene, then move some light source around, take another set of pictures etc. And in a similar sense to the irradiance volumes[1], instead of encoding just the gaussian parameters, encode them using something that lets you reconstruct the gaussian parameters based on the position of the primary light source for example. I know estimating light position and such from images has been worked on for image-based BRDF extraction for a long time[2].

Of course it'll require a lot more images and compute, but that's the nature of the dynamic beast.

Again not really thought this through and it's not really my field, though I was into physically-based rendering a decade ago. Just seems like this is something that seems like it would be solved by natural progression in a not too distant future.

[1]: https://chrisoat.com/papers/Oat_GDC2005_IrradianceVolumesFor...

[2]: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~lensch/Papers/TOG03BRDF.pdf (random example)

The problem with "unlimited detail" wasn't that it was static (the majority of any game's environment are), it's that it was using voxels which can't really compete with triangles when it comes to a quality-perf trade-off. They could render massive data sets, but not with a quality that is needed for games. Voxel-based data sets tend to require a whole lot of memory, whereas triangle-based data sets can cheaply "fake" higher details with textures. The blockiness of voxels is also a huge issue for anything that's not an axis-aligned-bounding-box, and to fix that you have to invest so much GPU resources, you might as well go back to textured triangles.

I wouldn't be surprised if gaussian splats make it into AAA games, though. Not as the main rendering primitive, but for specific things like vegetation where they really kick ass.

It’s more of a reconstruction technique than rendering technique. But the power is the 3D differentiable renderer. That means we can optimize an output image to look exactly as we want - given sufficient input data. If you want to learn more take a look at differentiable rendering and 3D multiview reconstruction.

Right. Note that Gaussian splatting as a rendering primitive dates from the early 90s, but it never saw much use. Splats aren't very good for magnification (important for medical/scientific/engineering visualization), nor do they have easy support for domain repetition (important for video games).

The new thing is fast regression of a real light field into Gaussian splats, which can then be rendered at reasonable rates. Dynamic lighting requires full inverse rendering as a preprocess, which is way beyond the scope of the technique. Technically Gaussian splats could form part of an inverse rendering pipeline, and also be the final target representation, but I'm not sure there would be any benefit over alternative rendering primitives.