Reminds me of this scene from Star Trek <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0qGXPDJ19c&feature=youtu.be&t=19m57s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0qGXPDJ19c&feature=youtu.be...</a> where the characters try to recreate their memories using the Holodeck. When I first saw it I thought that scene was ridiculously unrealistic -- but I suppose that's what I get for betting against technology.
It seems like defining how the semantic sliders behave would be much more work than having an artist do the 3d modelling. And either way, you're going to need that 3d artist in the first place. Am I missing something?
This looks fantastic.<p>Before Google axed it, there was 'Google Sets', which expanded a few basis terms into a longer list of related phrases.<p>To be sure, this seems to be more powerful than that. The ability to eek out a 3D model by simply playing around with five or so intuitive parameters could be enough to get millions of people to use 3D modelling for many casual purposes in the first place (whereas traditional tools require orders of magnitude more deliberate thought, and therefore cannot be justified for non-critical drawings).
I haven't read the paper, but from the video this kind of feels like blend shapes to me which are definitely not a new thing.
Custom facial rigs often have blending between different expressions, controlled by 2d sliders.
Another issue is probably the fact that the meshes need to be composed of the exact same amount of vertices to blend correctly, so no scanned 3d models. Would be cool if they blended on an underlying voxel representation though.
I like this a lot! One big challenge in 3d today is making the jump from data to content: The jump we made for 2d in the late 80s when Photoshop changed the perception from pixels to images. But what is the equivalent to a histogram or a brightness/contrast filter in 3d?