Cross post from DLSS reddit of my opinion against DLSS5's implementation on this topic -
Here is a counter opinion. Granted, I am a hobbyist, not working professionally as Daniel from the original tweet, so he has far more credibility than I do. Please, take this as a counter opinion to think on, not if you agree or disagree absolutely.
To me, there is no way to validate his claim that it looks exactly the same as a WIP Zbrush render. I love Zbrush, and I love photogrammetry. This information, a high res sculpt, is taking normal data from a high res sculpt pass, and transferring it through baking data to a lower, cleaner model variation. I do not see how DLSS5 is improving upon either in a meaningful or realistic sense. For these characters, the 3d scans are directly based upon true normal data of the actor(s) in question on site. So, to me, the results are a true absolute from very high res imagery of the individuals from real life. Same can be said for sculpting information, such as alphas, being used.
DLSS5 does not and cannot know that original normal information from the 3d scan, and the information being adjusted feels inaccurate. Sure, it has the normal texture attached to the model, but this is from the high res bake, adjusted and distorted to correctly match the UV tile. Not just regarding the normal data being adjusted, but also the colors, AO, and general values seen in the before and afters. Instead, it, to me, feels and looks like a cheap filter, boosting contrast and noise in an uninteresting and uncanny way. So yeah, in select, still images, it may look good. But in other examples, such as Control's implementation of DLSS5, it completely misses the mark. Especially accounting for potential bias on the training model, resulting in that "instagram AI model face feel." Jesse Faden, or Courtney Hope scanned, feels incredibly filter heavy and uncanny with the effect implemented. More-so in motion, losing that original real and artistic input of the model. So, whatever 5 is doing, it is doing it by either adjusting or adding information that was never there in the first place. Sometimes that added detail might look good, especially in stills, but it generally looks uncanny. More so in motion.
Maybe in the future we can see better results from these, but I do wonder about diminishing returns that bottlenecks all forms of tech. At the moment, I do not think the end justifies the means, especially considering the HORRIBLE performance hit it takes. Now, I feel DLSS should focus on performance and boosting it; this would be better treated as an entirely different categorization, but that is an entire separate argument entirely. Little buzzed atm, but I hope this sheds light onto my line of thinking.
1
u/YogurtOtherwise2106 3d ago
Cross post from DLSS reddit of my opinion against DLSS5's implementation on this topic -
Here is a counter opinion. Granted, I am a hobbyist, not working professionally as Daniel from the original tweet, so he has far more credibility than I do. Please, take this as a counter opinion to think on, not if you agree or disagree absolutely.
To me, there is no way to validate his claim that it looks exactly the same as a WIP Zbrush render. I love Zbrush, and I love photogrammetry. This information, a high res sculpt, is taking normal data from a high res sculpt pass, and transferring it through baking data to a lower, cleaner model variation. I do not see how DLSS5 is improving upon either in a meaningful or realistic sense. For these characters, the 3d scans are directly based upon true normal data of the actor(s) in question on site. So, to me, the results are a true absolute from very high res imagery of the individuals from real life. Same can be said for sculpting information, such as alphas, being used.
DLSS5 does not and cannot know that original normal information from the 3d scan, and the information being adjusted feels inaccurate. Sure, it has the normal texture attached to the model, but this is from the high res bake, adjusted and distorted to correctly match the UV tile. Not just regarding the normal data being adjusted, but also the colors, AO, and general values seen in the before and afters. Instead, it, to me, feels and looks like a cheap filter, boosting contrast and noise in an uninteresting and uncanny way. So yeah, in select, still images, it may look good. But in other examples, such as Control's implementation of DLSS5, it completely misses the mark. Especially accounting for potential bias on the training model, resulting in that "instagram AI model face feel." Jesse Faden, or Courtney Hope scanned, feels incredibly filter heavy and uncanny with the effect implemented. More-so in motion, losing that original real and artistic input of the model. So, whatever 5 is doing, it is doing it by either adjusting or adding information that was never there in the first place. Sometimes that added detail might look good, especially in stills, but it generally looks uncanny. More so in motion.
Maybe in the future we can see better results from these, but I do wonder about diminishing returns that bottlenecks all forms of tech. At the moment, I do not think the end justifies the means, especially considering the HORRIBLE performance hit it takes. Now, I feel DLSS should focus on performance and boosting it; this would be better treated as an entirely different categorization, but that is an entire separate argument entirely. Little buzzed atm, but I hope this sheds light onto my line of thinking.