Dude, you still didn't watch the indepth video. Please do a tiny bit of research before you post.

They explain the model is stock. They explain how the app helps distort the model to fit the plate. They explain how they app figures out the texture blind spots. They explain how it mirrors existing textures to fill the spot. They explain how is figures out the perspective of the plate. They explain how it then matches the lighting and shading of the original.

I'm a Comp Sci grad who spent a great deal of time doing 3D coding so yes, I've got some idea what is involved here.

Best case scenario here is you have to track down an existing 3-D model that matches the object you want to manipulate close enough to do well. You also need that model's texturing to match close enough to look good. They don't clearly show how you map that model to a portion of your 2d image, but if they have made that relatively simple it is the 'big deal' portion they are showing off because that is very hard, and most likely has some finicky bits to it.

Also, the first bit of finding a good matching 3-d model is the killer. Armed with a well matched 3-D model, something like Blender already let you do this relatively easily. Finding that model is the hard part and for anything living it's simply not going to exist in 90% of cases, so your gonna just not do it, or do what the movie guys are already doing and build your own model.

I'm not saying there's not good work here, but I am sceptical of the fact that the real nuts and bolts of what would make this a 'big deal'(the UI mapping) isn't being shown. Furthermore, the animated origami clinches my skepticism. Sorry, but 3-D animation of 'some object' in your 2d image has NOT been made easy or IMHO been changed at all by their product. 100% of the effort there is the 3-D animation of the object, which you still have to get somebody to do artistically, full stop.

The youtoube comments say it contains Guar gum, Carboxymethyl cellulose, and Carrageenan... it'll hold its shape, but it would have more of a jelly or marshmallow texture than an icecream once it was warmed up.

What possom said. They're delicious, with a texture closer to that of pork than that of other fish.

Enjoy them now...in a few more decades, they'll probably be overfished into extinction.

That was cool. I love how they pixelated the textures

My thoughts:

* For technology that is 8 years old, this is mighty impressive how small the difference is. It's worth looking back to see the 360/PS3 launch titles to see just how much has come from programming efficiency rather than raw processing power. It will be interesting to see if in 5 years, these new consoles will look equally miles better than they do now.

* Textures are sharper, particle effects like smoke and dust are snazzier and draw distance is greatly improved but ... on the whole, the lighting, most of the doodads in the environment, and the overall 'feel' is the same if you don't look too close.

* Sony's consoles seem to always display darker by default than MS's. I don't understand why for the purposes of comparison they can't pump up the brightness.

* With all the furore about Xbox One being 720p and PS4 being 900p (which doesn't sound too bad but is about 50% more pixels to the PS4), there doesn't seem to be a large diference in detail. If anything the environmental effects seem slightly better on the Xbox One.

Because you can't print a flag texture on a stick figure man.

It seems like a great way to quickly build a lot of fairly simple objects including a base texture. There would still be a lot of work to do, since this appears to only create a color layer (specular, bump/normal, and luminosity would still need to be created) and it lacks fine details in the model which some uses would require.

oh god and to think all the hours I spent modelling things in c4d and 3dsmax.

It's not bad. Looks to me like you might have to re--texture a few things to get it to work well.

but simply amazing. photo realism editing will be insane. You can never trust an digital image again.

Wow, impressive. This is another step forward in the virtual reality we expected to see decades ago (after seeing the Lawnmower Man and other VR-themed sci-fi, peaking with the Matrix.) This tech along with Oculus Rift will put people inside their avatars.

I didn't see the actor really shaking his jowls or showing his face reactive to gravity, which is a big part of what current CGI lacks. He probably wasn't allowed in case the headset broke, although I'm not fully aware if its role in the demo. I also wonder where the texture on the poly came from. It looks to be a good match for his face, but it wasn't real-time.

Fantastic sift!

I'll start by apologizing for the long reply...
I looked as closely as possible in HD fullscreen and on my computer the head never touched ground. More to the point, the child never reached for his head. Either way the point is moot, the mother never once even glances at the child to determine injury.
I did look closely, down to street view, at the whole park, and what I saw was it seems that in the non-skate areas there is a different texture to the ground (around the pool, playground area, etc.)
From my viewpoint (and I admit I could not read the park rules, I tried from every angle) the rest of the park is built specifically for skating, and has obstacles designed to skate on that have clear marks on them that that's what they are used for. The area you think is the only skate area has ramps in and out to skate on, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the implication of that design is you can skate everywhere. If I'm wrong in that guess, I'm wrong. There's no way to tell for certain from what I can see. That said, I draw the line at the areas designated for skating, and not in the areas designated for other things. As I've repeatedly stated, the skater bears some responsibility for not looking in a public place, but mom bears far more for allowing child to run free in a public skate park, especially when he was headed straight towards the street with no one watching until he screams.
I do admit from what I see this park is not well designed, as there is not a clear separation of the skate area and non-skate area, or a path from one non-skate area to another. If all the areas besides the small rail/bowl area are not for skating, they certainly should not have built it filled with skating obstacles and ramps, knowing that skaters will skate them.
I guess I misunderstood, yes, he was skating towards the picnic tables, but was no where near them at the end of his run, so who's to say he didn't plan on turning left into the rail area or stopping after the kick flip? The child was headed for the street, agreed?
Barrels out from behind an object is what children often do, and why they get hit, they don't know to look first.
Kid's mom is not seen until after the incident, then walking from the pavilion, she was not with or watching her child from every thing I see.
My reaction to blame the mom is because she was not watching her child and went off because that inattentiveness led to an accident, and she was the one responsible for her child's safety, no one else.

second post reply starts here:
OK, that's clearer that you don't excuse her actions. I accept and agree with that.
Expect the parent to be upset, absolutely. Expect them to be aggressive, not really but many people go that way. Expect them to be violent to address their own parental failings, not at all. Expect them to understand they (not the skater) is 70%+ at fault for not supervising a toddler? Never, parents rarely accept their failings and almost always deflect responsibility.
I feel you miss-state the situation. I say he should have hit her to stop her advance, not if she stopped, at the end of the video, she's still attacking. That's self defense, and using the skateboard in that capacity seems fine to me. We may disagree, people are different.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph...we just don't see it the same way. I feel like many parents have a natural defense mechanism of responsibility deflection, and I don't accept any responsibility for other's children, and would never expect them to take it for mine. I understand the mindset of parents that believe we all have a responsibility to take care of their children, I just disagree with it.
I also disagree that age is an excuse, if the child is too young to watch out for itself, it's 100% the parent's responsibility in my eyes, not mine.

And then there's the new idea that this discussion is all about a faked video. If true, the parent is still irresponsible for letting their child be run into on concrete where he may well have broken his skull, but maybe not completely out of control crazy violent.
Again, apologies for the long post.

Interesting. I can't believe I've never contemplated how cheese is made.

Starter cultures, or good bacteria, are added to start the cheesemaking process. They help determine the ultimate flavor and texture of the cheese. Next, a milk-clotting enzyme called rennet is added to coagulate the milk, forming a custard-like mass.

It's then cut into small pieces to begin the process of separating the liquid (whey) from the milk solids (curds). Large curds are cooked at lower temperatures, yielding softer cheeses like Mascarpone and Ricotta. Curds cut smaller are cooked at higher temperatures, yielding harder cheeses like Gruyere and Romano.

Cheesemakers cook and stir the curds and whey until the desired temperature and firmness of the curd is achieved. The whey is then drained off, leaving a tightly formed curd.

Rendering would be pretty much instant, as they're simply mapping shot footage onto generated 3d models as texture, in a sense.

It's generating the models that can be pretty intensive, and if they're actually getting reliable results of the quality seen here with only a few cameras, their software is pretty good. The automated solutions I've seen for scene capture have been a bit off from the mark still, having trouble with reflective surfaces especially and generally being a bit unpredictable. This looks quite impressive.
Probably they take advantage of having a fixed location, so they can pre-calibrate the camera fixes in advance, improving the quality of the spatial interpretation and probably speeding things up as well.

Jaaah, Vangelis and Eno create similar aural textures-Great!

*promote McRib being rib-like in everything but texture and flavour-