Is art over? People will now be able to manipulate 2D images as if they were 3D.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2016/2/a-3d-twist-for-flat-photos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMeBvrG9Uyo
American Scientist is not a pleb's publication so forgive me if this is too difficult for some of you to read, I can translate it for you if you need.
>>2414279
>American Scientist is not a pleb's publication
lmao, it's practically a rag compared to journal article reviews.
oh wait this is /ic/, nm
>>2414279
That's pretty interesting. However, it can't create anything new, it only manipulates what's already there. And what's more, the object's geometry and hidden texture are determined from a database -- meaning that if something isn't fully 3D modelled beforehand, it wont work.
>>2414279
That indian bitch is fooling no one with her fake british accent.
>>2414279
These threads are never going to end are they?
Come back when someone invents a device that can paint stuff directly from your mind on a computer.
>>2414299
That could make for an comics that people could make out of a few pre-rendered environments. I don't think it needs to be 3D modelled also. It is able to generate a 3D version of any object in a photo based on what it is able to see.
>>2414296
Compared to Scientific American or New Scientist, or even the worst of the worst, Popular Science, it's pretty high-level stuff.
>>2414335
that would be interesting too but it still wouldn't replace artistry
you would need to be an amazing artist, visualization and meditation master for that to work as well as a master painter
>>2414334
not sure if serious or retarded...
>>2414279
>publicly available free stock models
I-it's the end, we are so doomed
I'm not sure how can we even compete with this using our petty powers to produce stuff for which you won't find >free >stock >model replacements
it's worthless. You'd need the exact same model as is in your photo.
You've been able to do this for years, in any 3d package; it's just compositing.
>>2414279
No.
That said, this isn't even as good as that other program that determines the 3D shape of things in 2D images so you can manipulate them.
>>2414337
>Scientific American
oh shit never mind I confused the two.
>>2414279
>having jeb as a brother
no wonder he drank. jesus
>>2414279
wow, yet another software that is totally going to kill art. sorry noobie, but you won't see the end of professional art as we know it in your lifetime, no matter how much you want to, because you yourself are a failed, bitter artist.
