I don't see why this is beneficial exactly. In a object with regions that vary in detail, isn't having non-uniform triangles good? The uniform face is noticeably worse in the eyes, nose, and lips, but adds a bunch of complexity to the cheeks where it isn't really needed.
@leoadberg I think computationally, it's easier to deal with uniform objects. With a loss of uniformity, the ability to optimize probably decreases.
In what way do we decide whether to sacrifice the ability to optimize vs the detail we get with the non-uniform triangles? In most production level scenarios won't we want to get the most detail possible?
In the introduction of this paper, it seems that the motivation for remeshing is to make the mesh more suitable for later processes in the pipeline, since the source for the original mesh (e.g. a laser scan of an object) might produce a highly irregular mesh.
I feel like the non regular triangle meshes form more details of the shape than regular triangle meshes.
I suppose even though non-uniformity would model it better, in practice the trade offs in computation using uniform triangles are just probably more worth it. Its definitely simpler to work with uniformity across all triangles.
Adding onto what pervious comments have said, isn't the image on the right more accurate? I understand that there were rules set out for a 'good' mesh, but in an imperfect world isn't accuracy going to be found in more nuanced images (e.g. ones where all triangles are not uniform)?