FYI hydrographic printing isn't new... nor is the computational part to be honest. I assume both of these techniques have been used together before, but what we are seeing here is both: very well done, and: using off-the-shelf components.

Bonus the-future-is-now moment: "3D vision systems" are "off-the-shelf components".

What do you mean the computational part isn't new, who has done it before?

I would guess the part that would be commonly done is the texture mapping and the print out of some kind of simple projection

It looks like they have added, crucially, the math to account for the topology of the dipping process.

Take for example this technique: https://youtu.be/ljMePAmmxx4

Around 2:10 he mentions "you can actually set it for project as well" which is a lot closer to what's being done in this case.

Blender has to solve nearly the exact same problem for projections, the only differences being the projection has to be mapped backwards to a flat texture, and you have to account for the way the film clings to the surface and how it stretches. Topology and topography aren't an issue though, we've got that so covered. (But the material physics is something you would have to construct a model for, so if you wanted to solve this precise problem in Blender you might have better results with the physics engine.)

I have seen some variation on this available in even low-end 3D modelers since the 90s. IIRC Truespace's version of the feature did shrink-wrapping by running a simulation, much like they do here, but with different physics.

I thought I had even seen this used in printing before but I could be mistaken.

>>the math to account for the topology

Looks brute force to me as it is base only on the forward problem.