21–30 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So streaming services can save money on bandwidth
Or low connectivity scenarios that pushes more local processing. I think it a bit unimaginative to see no use cases for this.
The issue isn't NN reconstruction, but that you are reconstructing the wrong data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you ever do that? If you have the high res data you can actually compress the details which are there and then recreate them. No need to have those be recreated, when you actually have them. Downscaling the images and then upscaling them is pure insanity when the high res images are available.
There's lots of videos where there isn't high res data available
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's not perfect, though it does appear to be SoTA. Eventually something like this will just be part of every video codec. You stream a 480p version and let the TV create the 4K detail.
Why would you ever do that? If you have the high res data you can actually compress the details which are there and then recreate them. No need to have those be recreated, when you actually have them. Downscaling the images and then upscaling them is pure insanity when the high res images are available.
You're also ignoring the part where all lossy codecs throw away those same details and then fake-recreate them with enough fidelity that people are satisfied. Same concept, different mechanism.
Look up what 4:2:0 means vs 4:4:4 in a video codec and tell me you still think it's "pure insanity" to rescale.
Or, you know, maybe some people have reasons for doing things that aren't the same as the narrow scope of use-cases you considered, and this would work perfectly well for them.
Video quality seems really good, but limitations are quite restrictive "Our model encounters challenges when processing extremely long videos (e.g. 200 frames or more)". I'd say most videos in practice are longer than 200 frames, so lot more research is still needed.
I guess one can break videos into 200-frame chunks and process them independent of each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 30fps, which is not high, that would mean chunks of less than 7 seconds. Doable but highly impractical to say the least.
You will probably have to have some overhang of time to get the state space to match enough to minimize flicker in between fragments.
I find it interesting how it changed the bokeh from a octagon to a circular bokeh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So streaming services can save money on bandwidth
That's absurd. I think anybody is aware that it is far superior to e.g. compress in the frequency domain than to down sample your image. If you don't believe me just compare a JPEG compressed image with the same image of the same size compressed with down sampling. You will notice a literal night and day difference. Down sampling is a bad way to do compression. It makes no sense to do NN reconstruction on that if you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you ever do that? If you have the high res data you can actually compress the details which are there and then recreate them. No need to have those be recreated, when you actually have them. Downscaling the images and then upscaling them is pure insanity when the high res images are available.
Why would someone ever take a 40Mbps (compressed) video and downsample it so it can be encoded at 400Kbps (compressed) but played back with nearly the same fidelity / with similar artifacts to the same process at 50x data volume? The world will never know. You're also ignoring the part where all lossy codecs throw away those same details and then fake-recreate them with enough fidelity that people are satisfied. Same…
Because you can just not downscale them and compress them in the frequency domain and encode them in 200Kbps? This is pretty obvious, seriously do you not understand what JPEG does? And why it doesn't do down sampling?
Do you seriously believe downscaling outperforms compressing in the frequency domain?