Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question] Why use NeRF over faster alternatives #26

Open
a-r-j opened this issue Mar 27, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

[Question] Why use NeRF over faster alternatives #26

a-r-j opened this issue Mar 27, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@a-r-j
Copy link

a-r-j commented Mar 27, 2023

Hi again,

I was wondering why you use the classical NeRF (as far as I can tell from the notes in the code) instead of faster alternatives like pNeRF and mp NeRF?

Thanks 😀

@khb7840
Copy link
Member

khb7840 commented Mar 27, 2023

Hi there,

Thanks for your question! We actually checked those papers during development and currently our implementation of classical NeRF against pNeRF and mp-NeRF is just as fast as mp-NeRF (ours: 0.01s for avg 480 AAs including I/O on HDD, mp-nerf: 0.0091s for 500 AAs).
We chose to apply file-level parallelization, which helps handling mis-formatted files.
We know that we can get speed-up of single-file decompression and side-chain reconstruction from mp-NeRF. We're exploring a few different options.

Let us know if you have any further questions or concerns!

@khb7840 khb7840 added the question Further information is requested label Mar 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants