Yeah, I can't wait to see more details.

👌

I thought I would be the only one to notice, I was wrong ^^

i dont understand can somebody explain to me ?

Black Adam check out 2 minute papers

The Gaussian Material Synthesis paper took about 3000 hours in total, done over the course of several years. I don't know how long the others took. A lot of the time is spent trying approaches and discarding them when they ultimately don't work. This is not to say that the approach they end up going with is simple.

Ben Powell I hope authors mention discarded approaches, so that other researcher's don't try a path that will not lead anywhere.

Jon Wise the thing is such work is alwz rejected, i mean if u write a paper saying here is an idea here is what we were expecting , we got this instead and this why. paper like this are not allowed in computer graphic and vision

AssassinGrudge Do you think this is a problem or it's better this way? Because, on one hand, negative outcomes can be very valuable to learn from. On the other hand, including lots of non-critical details into a paper could bloat it significantly, forcing researchers to spend more time reading those papers than otherwise would be necessary. And considering that papers are in some way the currency of academia (you're getting more career points with more papers), if they were to accept papers with negative outcomes it could incentive researches going a more easier route and exploring things that don't work, rather than finding things that do work. When I wrote my first comment I was thinking that it sucks that negative outcomes are essentially invisible and researchers could spend time exploring routes that were already explored before. But now as I thought about it more, it sort of makes sense, if you think of academia not as a pure knowledge accumulating system, but as an economic system that has to provide right incentives for academics to play by. And in that sense, rewarding negative outcomes could be counter-productive.

Jon Wise well your comment explain it all and i agree with you. However this way of research may miss lead new comers and kill creativity i mean if you see the whole community ingore a giving idea with out explictly saying that is dead end or why you will end up following them in predefinded researche path .

HEY! I've seen that armadillo before!

those are not addons or upgrades they're new techniques; you can check out the papers for each one where they explain the method and algorithm and either implement those methods yourself or use a supplied implementation if the authors included one.

??

Least impressive maybe.... but worst? How?