Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

📢 New Paper PointSt3R: Point Tracking through 3D Grounded Correspondence Can point tracking be re-formulated as pairwise frame correspondence solely? We fine-tuning MASt3R with dynamic correspondences and a visibility loss and achieve competitive point tracking results 1/3

10,488 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Wow. Recreating the Shawshank Redemption prison in 3D from a single video, in real time (!) Just read the MASt3R-SLAM paper and it's pretty neat. These folks basically built a real-time dense SLAM system on top of MASt3R, which is a transformer-based neural network that can do 3d reconstruction and localization from uncalibrated image pairs. The cool part is they don't need a fixed camera model -- it just works with arbitrary cameras -- think different focal lengths, sensor sizes, even handling zooming in video (FMV drone video anyone?!). If you've done photogrammetry or played with NeRFs you know that is a HUGE deal. They've solved some tricky problems like efficient point matching and tracking, plus they've figured out how to fuse point clouds and handle loop closures in real-time. Their system runs at about 15 FPS on a 4090 and produces both camera poses and dense geometry. When they know the camera calibration, they get SOTA results across several benchmarks, but even without calibration, they still perform well. What's interesting is the approach -- most recent SLAM work has built on DROID-SLAM's architecture, but these folks went a different direction by leveraging a strong 3D reconstruction prior. Seems to give them more coherent geometry, which makes sense since that's what MASt3R was designed for. For anyone who cares about monocular SLAM and 3D reconstruction, this feels like a significant step toward plug-and-play dense SLAM without calibration headaches -- perfect for drones, robots, AR/VR -- the works!

Bilawal Sidhu

703,816 views • 1 year ago

🎋MOCOPI vs VIVE TRACKERS🎋 I got a crazy crazy upgrade on full body tracking thanks to the support of my bambuds, so I made a silly dance comparison to compare the tracking between my old FBT and my new one!! ✨ I danced Bibbidiba by Suisei! (ft. bae as my guide lol) I had to use a different model for the Vive comparison because my Toffee model doesn't work well with the trackers! PROS AND CONS 🔽 1. Mocopi is SO MUCH EASIER to set up! It's very very beginner friendly as well and a great asset to get if you're just starting on doing 3D stuff or want to try it out! Vive trackers are lowkey a pain to set up each time! 2. Vive trackers are EXPENSIIIVEEEE!!!!! The tracking is so so so good but only invest in it if you plan to do lots of 3D content! Mocopi is a much affordable option! 3. Related to point 2, but you get what you pay for when it comes to tracking. Vive may be more expensive, but the tracking quality and accuracy makes it worth it. 4. This is only for people that don't have the Valve Headset, but I use a Quest 3 and I have to do EXTRA SETUP to calibrate the trackers with an external program to use in VRChat! (Mocopi also needs an external program (SlimeVR) but it's much easier to set up imo). 5. Since calibration is paired to your headset with the vive trackers, if your headset goes to sleep or something the calibration will be LOST and you will have to recalibrate again which may take 1 to 2 minutes. Mocopi doesn't have this issue and recalibrating is only one button. 6. Mocopi is an IMU so no base stations required but because of this the trackers need to be recalibrated A LOT of times. This may be annoying if you're streaming and you constantly have to press the button to recalibrate. Vive trackers may take longer but you VERY RARELY have to recalibrate if your headset doesn't go to sleep. 7. Vive trackers take a lot of space on your setup. Each tracker needs to be connected to the PC so if you have a lot you may need to buy an USD hub! 8. You need to have a good room space to use vive trackers properly because the base stations need to have a clear view of your trackers or else they can lose tracking! Mocopi is an IMU, so no amount of obstruction will make the trackers lose tracking. 9. The amount of poses and movement that you can do with vive trackers is NIGHT AND DAY compared to the mocopi. A lot of poses or rapid movements will make the mocopis mess up their tracking and you will have to recalibrate. Vive trackers will not need any recalibration. Basically if you're a vtuber that only wants to dabble into 3D content as a fun little thing I think mocopis are very much a good choice! But if you'd like to do 3D stuff that require more intensive tracking like dancing, vive trackers are excellent and very much worth the price!

Toffee 🐾🎋

80,586 views • 1 year ago

FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg presents TRIPS Trilinear Point Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering paper page: Point-based radiance field rendering has demonstrated impressive results for novel view synthesis, offering a compelling blend of rendering quality and computational efficiency. However, also latest approaches in this domain are not without their shortcomings. 3D Gaussian Splatting [Kerbl and Kopanas et al. 2023] struggles when tasked with rendering highly detailed scenes, due to blurring and cloudy artifacts. On the other hand, ADOP [R\"uckert et al. 2022] can accommodate crisper images, but the neural reconstruction network decreases performance, it grapples with temporal instability and it is unable to effectively address large gaps in the point cloud. In this paper, we present TRIPS (Trilinear Point Splatting), an approach that combines ideas from both Gaussian Splatting and ADOP. The fundamental concept behind our novel technique involves rasterizing points into a screen-space image pyramid, with the selection of the pyramid layer determined by the projected point size. This approach allows rendering arbitrarily large points using a single trilinear write. A lightweight neural network is then used to reconstruct a hole-free image including detail beyond splat resolution. Importantly, our render pipeline is entirely differentiable, allowing for automatic optimization of both point sizes and positions. Our evaluation demonstrate that TRIPS surpasses existing state-of-the-art methods in terms of rendering quality while maintaining a real-time frame rate of 60 frames per second on readily available hardware. This performance extends to challenging scenarios, such as scenes featuring intricate geometry, expansive landscapes, and auto-exposed footage.

AK

45,459 views • 2 years ago

3D-LLM: Injecting the 3D World into Large Language Models paper page: Large language models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have been proven to excel at multiple tasks, such as commonsense reasoning. Powerful as these models can be, they are not grounded in the 3D physical world, which involves richer concepts such as spatial relationships, affordances, physics, layout, and so on. In this work, we propose to inject the 3D world into large language models and introduce a whole new family of 3D-LLMs. Specifically, 3D-LLMs can take 3D point clouds and their features as input and perform a diverse set of 3D-related tasks, including captioning, dense captioning, 3D question answering, task decomposition, 3D grounding, 3D-assisted dialog, navigation, and so on. Using three types of prompting mechanisms that we design, we are able to collect over 300k 3D-language data covering these tasks. To efficiently train 3D-LLMs, we first utilize a 3D feature extractor that obtains 3D features from rendered multi- view images. Then, we use 2D VLMs as our backbones to train our 3D-LLMs. By introducing a 3D localization mechanism, 3D-LLMs can better capture 3D spatial information. Experiments on ScanQA show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by a large margin (e.g., the BLEU-1 score surpasses state-of-the-art score by 9%). Furthermore, experiments on our held-in datasets for 3D captioning, task composition, and 3D-assisted dialogue show that our model outperforms 2D VLMs. Qualitative examples also show that our model could perform more tasks beyond the scope of existing LLMs and VLMs.

AK

249,708 views • 3 years ago