Foundational geometry-representation study. Compared point-cloud and mesh representations to signed-distance fields (SDFs); built analytic SDFs for sphere and cuboid; explored GAN-based SDF generation. Pre-thesis-line preparation that informs every subsequent SDF-using topic (Six-Plane Mesh, Hexplane AE, Hierarchical Triplane, the UODF deep-dive).
By February 2025 the thesis line was starting to think about 3-D shape representations for ML use. The choices on the table: point clouds (raw scan data), meshes (Houdini-native), and SDFs (implicit surfaces with smooth gradients). The SDF study session was the literacy-and-compare exercise before committing.
| Representation | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Point cloud | Direct from LiDAR / photogrammetry; PointNet++ input | No topology; sparse; hard to texture |
| Mesh (triangles) | Explicit topology; rendering / texturing / Houdini-native | Variable-vertex-count breaks batched NN training |
| SDF | Smooth gradient (‖∇SDF‖ ≈ 1); differentiable; marching-cubes extractable | Closed surfaces only (use UDF / UODF for open surfaces) |
Briefly explored using a GAN to generate SDFs (DeepSDF-class). Conclusion at the time: training a GAN on SDFs is unstable; the diffusion alternative (Topic 6 red-square, later JiT) is more promising and was pursued instead.
White paper · SDF foundation study · analytic SDFs + CSG · GAN-SDF dead end · thesis-line propagation
Slide between sphere SDF and cuboid SDF. Click a CSG button to combine them via union, intersection, or subtract.