AFAIK MPEG-4 experimented with encoding 3d objects but it never took off. As usual for MPEG they did not specify how to get the 3d data from a scene but how to encode them, actually how to decode them, so that innovation could happen on the encoding side.
The idea is so obvious that I would be astounded if this company gets anywhere. I'd wager many research teams already attempted this and were never heard from again.
Also note that video compression is pretty impressive these days. A typical 2 hour 1080p movie compresses down to a handful of GiB. Compare that to a typical 1080p action game which is easily ten times that big, because storing all the meshes and textures takes a lot of space, it turns out.
I think the fundamentals are already in place to support direct encoding of 3 spatial dimensions (or more) using essentially the same ideas as in JPEG/MPEG:
Not sure what the pros/cons this kind of approach might bring, or if it's already being used in some areas. I find it really hard to believe that 3d modeling software ecosystem has not experimented with the idea of lossy compression. Does the loss of high frequency information cause more adverse outcomes in 3d models than in 2d models? Seems like this could be useful in games or other creative areas where mathematical precision of the final compressed artifact is not essential.
The idea is so obvious that I would be astounded if this company gets anywhere. I'd wager many research teams already attempted this and were never heard from again.
Also note that video compression is pretty impressive these days. A typical 2 hour 1080p movie compresses down to a handful of GiB. Compare that to a typical 1080p action game which is easily ten times that big, because storing all the meshes and textures takes a lot of space, it turns out.