31–40 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess one can break videos into 200-frame chunks and process them independent of each other.
At 30fps, which is not high, that would mean chunks of less than 7 seconds. Doable but highly impractical to say the least.
The first demo on the page alone shows that it is a huge failure. It clearly changes the expression of the person. Yes, it is impressive, but it's not what you want to actually "enhance" a movie.
It doesn't change the expression - the animated gifs are merely out of sync. This appears to happen because they begin animating as soon as they finish loading, which happens at different times for each side of the image.
Would be neat to see this on much older videos (maybe WW2 era) to see how it improves details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or low connectivity scenarios that pushes more local processing. I think it a bit unimaginative to see no use cases for this.
There is no use case, because it is a stupid idea. Downscaling then reconstructing is a stupid idea for exactly the same reasons why downscaling for compression is a bad idea. The issue isn't NN reconstruction, but that you are reconstructing the wrong data.
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.
But idk how someone can write "extremely long videos" with a straight face when meaning seconds.
Maybe "long frame sequences"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>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 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 downscalin…
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.
Would it kill them to say that the method works best on short videos/scenes?