Skip to content

LUCE VS SHARP · APPLE IMAGE-TO-3D

Luce vs SHARP

Two Apple papers, one phrase—“image to 3D”—and very different goals. SHARP answers “what does this photo look like from slightly to the left?”; Luce answers “give me this object as an asset I can light in a game engine.”

All comparisons
FeatureSHARPLuce
InputOne photo of a sceneOne image of an object
OutputMetric 3D Gaussian scene (.ply) for real-time nearby viewsRelightable PBR Gaussians (albedo, metallic-roughness, normals) + optional textured mesh
RelightingNo — lighting is baked into the photoYes
Viewpoint rangeNearby viewpoints; unseen regions are not reconstructedFull object asset intended for arbitrary views
Reported speedUnder 1 s on a standard GPU (Apple)Not the headline metric; quality results on Toys4K
Code and weightsPublic: apple/ml-sharp (predict on CPU, CUDA or MPS; render needs CUDA)Not confirmed as released at the time of checking
PaperarXiv 2512.10685 (Dec 2025)arXiv 2608.23943 (Aug 2026)

Checked 2026-09-17

Decision summary

  • Use SHARP today for 3D-photo and parallax effects from ordinary photos; the CLI is on this site.
  • Watch Luce for product, AR and game assets that must respond to new lighting.
  • They are complementary, not competitors: scene reconstruction versus asset generation.

Choose SHARP when

  • You have a photo of a place, not an isolated object
  • You need results now on a Mac (MPS) or CUDA GPU
  • Nearby-view parallax is enough

Choose Luce when

  • You need PBR materials for a renderer or game engine
  • The asset will be seen from many angles under new lights
  • You can wait for an official release

How to read this table

SHARP’s speed and Luce’s quality numbers come from different papers and tasks; they are listed to describe each model, not to rank one above the other.

Questions

Can I view SHARP output in the browser?

Yes—SHARP writes standard 3D Gaussian .ply files that open in web-based Gaussian splat viewers. Generation itself runs locally with the official CLI.