The worst part about this encoder is it thinks it's dealing with static pictures in plenty of cases. The version on the right simply has no movement while movie continues to play on left. Also, faces don't move when one person speaks. That's a no go even if the picture quality didn't look like crap.
Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
41–50 of 70 posts
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is possibly the next generation of video/audio/image codecs. What he did was create a specialized compression algorithm that works very well to compress the data that is each frame of Blade Runner, and decompress it (lossily, like mp3) back into a video stream. To put this into perspective: Blade Runner is 117 minutes long. At 25 frames per second, that is 175_500 frames. As he says, the input data he used was 2…
Except that in my understand, the decoded version looks like shit. So, while optimistic that this technology might be quite good eventually, more heuristics are probably needed for the right way to extract an optimal encoding. e.g. see the screenshots here: http://www.eteknix.com/blade-runner-gets-trippy-auto-encoded...
This is only a proof of concept, with a very small input size, and very strong compression. The impressive thing is that it works at all.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Music has that sorted already. There is copyright. There is publishing right. If you make a cover of a recording, it is the latter that you are involved with. You'd have to go to the publishers of a piece of music to license the right to publish your interpretation of the work. Obviously this post simplifies, but it's already answered.
Re: publishing rights, you can make a cover version of a song using a "compulsory mechanical license", whether the owner likes it or not.
So are remixes allowed, or do you need permission from the original publisher?
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is possibly the next generation of video/audio/image codecs. What he did was create a specialized compression algorithm that works very well to compress the data that is each frame of Blade Runner, and decompress it (lossily, like mp3) back into a video stream. To put this into perspective: Blade Runner is 117 minutes long. At 25 frames per second, that is 175_500 frames. As he says, the input data he used was 2…
Except that in my understand, the decoded version looks like shit. So, while optimistic that this technology might be quite good eventually, more heuristics are probably needed for the right way to extract an optimal encoding. e.g. see the screenshots here: http://www.eteknix.com/blade-runner-gets-trippy-auto-encoded...
As part of a compression suite, that may not matter all that much. I can think of a hybridized version of this that starts with this ANN and then applies 'fixes' by a traditional video codec stream. If the ANN can represent most of the bits of the frame pretty well, the ANN + Codec data can match a traditional codec-only approach with substantially less data.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that in my understand, the decoded version looks like shit. So, while optimistic that this technology might be quite good eventually, more heuristics are probably needed for the right way to extract an optimal encoding. e.g. see the screenshots here: http://www.eteknix.com/blade-runner-gets-trippy-auto-encoded...
This is only a proof of concept, with a very small input size, and very strong compression. The impressive thing is that it works at all.
Right, but my point is that your numbers don't indicate anything about the actual potential as a compression format. It is certainly possible to use it that way, but there is still much that is uncertain about whether a neural network can do better than hand-crafted compression formats. So it's a little early to call it "next generation." It is literally meaningless to point out that "his neural network compresses each image down to 200 floats", since it doesn't actually work well with such a small latent space.
It's not exactly unknown that autoencoders can reconstruct images, so I don't see why it's "impressive that it works at all."
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only a proof of concept, with a very small input size, and very strong compression. The impressive thing is that it works at all.
Right, but my point is that your numbers don't indicate anything about the actual potential as a compression format. It is certainly possible to use it that way, but there is still much that is uncertain about whether a neural network can do better than hand-crafted compression formats. So it's a little early to call it "next generation." It is literally meaningless to point out that "his neural network compresses ea…
> So it's a little early to call it "next generation."
Please don't ignore words other people write, or at least reread before hitting post. I did say possibly.
> I don't see why it's "impressive that it works at all."
I thought it was implicit from my explanation that the "works at all" includes the fact that the data sizes are reasonable already. If we had the same result, but the intermediary data was 18 gigabytes, then there would be nothing impressive about it. As it is, we're a lot below that, before further compression, so it is.
Remember: Prototype, Proof of Concept. You're looking at the first step, not the last step. You're looking at a motor carriage, not a Tesla.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#47Bullshit... this is still encoding. It does not matter that it is using neural network to encode frame. Guys, when you get over this neural network hype? I can as well create and encoder using some machine learning, to create a blurry and inferior version of the movie. But what's the point? I could as well used other prediction method with some kind of memory, much superior and nobody will enjoy it. Summing up: nothi…
> But what's the point? Autoencoders don't really have much practical use now, but that's not the point of them. The point is we really want to figure out how to do unsupervised learning well and autoencoders are one of the few ways of doing it. We want to do unsupervised learning well because most learning that humans do is unsupervised. The idea behind autoencoding is that by forcing the network to try to learn eff…
Thanks for great answer!
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#48Can anyone explain what does this encoder actually does and how is it different than any other encoder? The article almost seems to make it sound that this encoder somehow reconstructed the film...
This is possibly the next generation of video/audio/image codecs. What he did was create a specialized compression algorithm that works very well to compress the data that is each frame of Blade Runner, and decompress it (lossily, like mp3) back into a video stream. To put this into perspective: Blade Runner is 117 minutes long. At 25 frames per second, that is 175_500 frames. As he says, the input data he used was 2…
It sounds to me, almost superficially, that this technique might benefit from work done in compressive sensing. The mechanism of encoding and decoding seem very related.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that in my understand, the decoded version looks like shit. So, while optimistic that this technology might be quite good eventually, more heuristics are probably needed for the right way to extract an optimal encoding. e.g. see the screenshots here: http://www.eteknix.com/blade-runner-gets-trippy-auto-encoded...
As part of a compression suite, that may not matter all that much. I can think of a hybridized version of this that starts with this ANN and then applies 'fixes' by a traditional video codec stream. If the ANN can represent most of the bits of the frame pretty well, the ANN + Codec data can match a traditional codec-only approach with substantially less data.
The thing is that diff between the film and "encoded" version look pretty fuzzy/muddy and so compressing that diff would have to be difficult.
Anyway, the article doesn't mention this idea, the first hn discussion had someone claim some other ridiculous use of the fuzzy/muddy images that are supposed to mean something and ultimately I'd say it's an example of "my research project has cool images, I can use them for publicity".
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: publishing rights, you can make a cover version of a song using a "compulsory mechanical license", whether the owner likes it or not.
So are remixes allowed, or do you need permission from the original publisher?
Assuming the remix uses the actual recording you need permission from the person who made that recording (the recording is covered by copyright).