Most billionaires you have never and will never hear about.
There are probably quite a few more which don't own big stakes in companies and are hidden behind financial webs.
Anyone putting their name out, for anything, risks getting someone, somewhere, really pissed off.
One sentence can start a global riot of the press get behind it.
Photogrammetry generates actual three dimensional images, not merely appearances of.
Scale can be hard to capture in photogrammetry, but in general the unrealness probably has more to do with the somewhat smoothed out (triangulated) surface that doesn't capture too fine a level of detail and the textureless (uncoloured) model they are rendering.
There is some analysis here:
And it's certainly true from experience.
It looks like you've commented about paywalls/signups before. Are you having issues with using the web link? I've seen people comment about issues with the web links, but have never experienced it myself.
Either stop at the paywall or buy a subscription. 10 free articles is fair.
And now that I've replied in like to your rhetoric I'll point out that this is a question of paid access and not copyright. You can put on a Shakespearean play (written before copyright) in a theatre and still charge entry. Indeed that's exactly how Shakespeare and his company earnt their living. Again, without copyright.
Are you so sure that I might be counted among those who advocate walled gardens, closed source software and software patents? Maybe I make my living differently, and carry other views.
As I am usually reading on iPhone and as I generally happy with the freedom trade- off and as iPhone cookie altering seems to be a RRPITA I simply won't read the article and will move on.
Never assume that ignorance is the reason for another's actions - something surprisingly relevant this week.
Think of it this way, the ROV goes down and uses a high resolution sonar instrument to see the 3D structure in front of it down to a centimeter/millimeter level of detail, at the same time it takes pictures. Then they take all that data and process it with a computer in order to generate basically a 3D textured model. Then they take renderings from that model and produce the images you've seen. The individual images from the ROVs would be much less interesting due to the very small field of view and the limitations of the lights.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry
In retrospect, there are some tell-tale signs (like the edge of the model where the ground is discontinuous).
My original reply:
"Photogrammetry" in this context, assuming the article is using the term correctly, should mean that the models are a computer reconstruction of the 3d shape based on a dataset of a large number of photos.
Depending on the coverage and quality of the photos taken, some cleanup would be necessry, and potentially a human might have made up particular details after the fact if some portions of the ship were not visible in the photos taken, probably due to occlusions etc.
The article seem to say this was a side product of a geological survey mission, so my guess based on that and personal experience with photogrammetry techniques is the geometry of the model is feature accurate, although some noise may have been introduced. The lighting is likely to be artificial.