Released model produces CRAP texture and very low quality texture, worse than any free models , but mesh looks great.

[1blackbar]

And from the demos this model looked like the best texture quality.
Is that intentional that you released crappo model to the public ?
Trelli and even stable 3d has better texture. This is kinda like tripo sample release quality, kinda useless, also it normalizes all colors from blacks to whites which results in burned out texture that just looks bad.
This is simply not as advertised.
The model in demos is not the one you released and this should be mentioned in bold cause its pretty hard to set this up.

[1blackbar]

Just look, mesh is fine but this tetxure is like 128x128res

[boyan-orion]

I guess it's due to the texture rendering being capped at low resolution at the moment. Higher rez textures like 1024 or 2048 are probably quite possible so it's only a matter of time until fine tunes and integration happens.

[FurkanGozukara]

Authors please publish with same model as demos. This is being misleading.

[1blackbar]

I think its intentional, theyre aware of it and adapted the code so it performs worse and then released it.
So i wouldnt hope for a fix but for competitor thats going to make this one obsolete.
You can choose texture size 1024 but it is defo not 1024 res texture, more like 124 res

[bbecausereasonss]

So annoyed with Demo's looking nothing like results...

[KiriBaimian]

I referred to the details in the report and integrated a 4x super-resolution network after generating multiple images, achieving results similar to the demo. Perhaps they find it inconvenient to use others' results in their code?

[AnnaCC-AI]

I've tried this open source code and did some minor exploration and modification, usually it's able to output reasonable textures lol
results from sf3d and trellis r quite blurry for me and they r not possible to generate textures independently. plz share them if there r any better texture generation models?

[AY1997]

Thank you for your attention and suggestions. We have some clarifications for your feedback:

About Demo and Released Models

• The released model weights and inference pipeline are exactly the same as the official huggingface demo. If you have any deployment questions, please contact us.

Texture Resolution Setup

• Our multi-view image setup uses 512x512 resolution, which are then unwrapped into a 1K resolution texture map. The claim of "128x128 resolution" is incorrect and misleading.
• Additionally, you could enhance the resolution further by incorporating a freely available super-resolution model (such as ESRGAN) at the end of the multi-view image generation process from our pipeline refer to the technical report, as is commonly done in the open-source community with minimal effort.

Quality Comparison with Other Free Models

• We compared the texture results generated from the same image using both our method and Trellis (both tested on the Huggingface demo). For a fair comparison, we randomly selected a sample from the Trellis gallery and enabled a 2K resolution texture size on Trellis.
• Here are the input images and results under the same rendering settings:

We believe the comparison clearly demonstrates the superior quality of our textures. We hope this clarifies the misunderstandings and provides a more accurate representation of our work. We are always open to constructive feedback and further discussions to improve our project. Additionally, we are actively working on generating higher-resolution textures, so please stay tuned for future updates.