Questions about the 4D mesh generation

[Sugercanee]

A very nice work!
But I have a question about What are the advantages of generating 4D mesh shapes compared to the deformation of a 3D mesh after binding it to a skeleton?
In other words, what advantages does this 4D mesh shape generation without skeletal binding have compared to skeletal binding methods?

[WindVChen]

Hi @Sugercanee ,

Thanks for the question!

In my opinion, both skeletal binding and direct 4D mesh generation are valid approaches, each with their own strengths and trade-offs.

Skeletal-based methods rely on high-quality rigging and skinning. Current rigging and skinning methods work well for humanoid objects but don't generalize easily to general objects. In contrast, our 4D generation method leverages advanced 3D generative models, making it more generalizable to a wider range of shapes and categories.

That said, once a rigged model is ready, it's flexible for extending to diverse motions. Our method, on the other hand, requires inference for each motion sequence.

Hope this helps!

[Sugercanee]

Thanks for your answer!

The direct 4D mesh generation can be really expanded to a wider range of shapes and categories(just like something don't have skeletal),but the 4D mesh without a skeleton can be directly applied to animation production?

Does the 4D mesh sequence have any practical application value?

[WindVChen]

I think there should be many practical applications. For example, when combined with video generation methods, we can quickly produce 4D mesh animations of objects. These 4D meshes can serve as dynamic assets—similar to how 3D assets are used today in animation or game design.

Instead of starting from static 3D models and adding motion manually, designers could directly use 4D assets with built-in motion, which may streamline the content creation process.

[Sugercanee]

Thank you very much！