The main selling point of Gaussian Splatting over NeRF-based methods is rendering (and training) speed and efficiency.
This does come at the cost of physical correctness as it uses splatting instead of a real radiance field.
This method tries to move back to radiance fields, but with a primitive-based representation instead of neural nets.
Rendering performance seems to be quite poor (30fps on a 4090), and rendering quality improvements seem to be marginal.
I'm not quite sure I understand where this fits in when NeRFs and 3DGS already exist at the opposite ends of the correctness-speed tradeoff spectrum.
Maybe somewhere in the middle?
Primitive-based representations are a lot easier to manipulate (e.g. animate) than NeRFs. Also they can be a lot more efficient/scalable when there's a lot of e.g. empty space.
I think they're suggesting that their method is still faster than most NeRF based methods? They have slightly worse image quality compared to ZipNeRF while getting 72x the frame rate. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding...
This method tries to move back to radiance fields, but with a primitive-based representation instead of neural nets. Rendering performance seems to be quite poor (30fps on a 4090), and rendering quality improvements seem to be marginal.
I'm not quite sure I understand where this fits in when NeRFs and 3DGS already exist at the opposite ends of the correctness-speed tradeoff spectrum. Maybe somewhere in the middle?