More specifics are in python_api.cu. The .json-based loader unfortunately only supports a single set of camera parameters per json file.
For (3), this will largely manifest as artifacts when trying to view the scene from the top of bottom (i.e. outside of the convex hull of the training data). If you plan for the viewpoint to stay close to the ring of cameras, you should be fine.
Curious to hear whether you find the Python bindings w.r.t. (2) helpful.
Hi there, first of call: cool setup!
(1) shouldn't be a problem as long as the camera poses are precise enough for the
Train extrinsics
option to fix any slight inaccuracies.I suspect the problem comes more from (2) and (3).
For (2), we recently (yesterday) pushed support for per-camera metadata. You can customize it via the python bindings
More specifics are in
python_api.cu
. The.json
-based loader unfortunately only supports a single set of camera parameters per json file.For (3), this will largely manifest as artifacts when trying to view the scene from the top of bottom (i.e. outside of the convex hull of the training data). If you plan for the viewpoint to stay close to the ring of cameras, you should be fine.
Curious to hear whether you find the Python bindings w.r.t. (2) helpful.
Cheers!
Originally posted by @Tom94 in https://github.com/NVlabs/instant-ngp/issues/257#issuecomment-1048803260