TBH only one author out of four has a Google affiliation, and their personal webpage [1] says "part-time (20%) staff research scientist at Google DeepMind", so it's a stretch to call this a "Google technique". I notice that this is a common thing when discussing research paper, people associate it with the first company name they can find in the affiliations
Pure conjecture: relighting in Pixel phones. I don't think they have too many AR-like products. I'm surprised so much of this research is coming out of Google and not Meta.
I'm a little surprised Google hasn't included lidar into their Pixel phones (even after including and dropping some oddball stuff like Soli) to support some of these radiance field / photogrammetry techniques. I guess the <2.5% market share of Pixel phones wouldn't encourage any third parties with bothering to develop for lidar on Android.
I have no idea, but given their stock of pictures of the entire earth (via google maps), I have some ideas about what I HOPE they would use this tech for.
And Google Maps/Google Earth have a long history of trying to create 3d views using all kinds of techniques, from manual modeling to radar satellite data.
You must have more faith in research papers than I do. Every single one I've actually used has had significant flaws that are glossed over by what isn't being shown or said.
Maybe you're misunderstanding the point of research. Research groups set constraints not only for practical reasons, but so that the novelty in their papers isn't bogged down by edge cases. It seems absurd to just wholesale reject the usefulness of all research papers just on account of your own failure to properly make use of them.
The problem is when the constraints exclude methods that are comparable performance while otherwise being superior options for the problem they are solving. I've found this to be extremely common.
Maybe you're misunderstanding just how different most research papers actually are when you implement them and see all the limitations they have, especially when they compare themselves to general techniques that work better but they claim to surpass.
It's naive to accept what a paper does as fact from a video, you have to get it to work and try it out to really know. Anyone who has worked with research papers knows this from experience.
