51–60 of 243 posts
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.
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/history/115-years-ago-wright-brothers-m....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally irrelevant to the discussion, which is explicitly about streaming services delivering in lower resolutions than they have available.
Streaming services already deliver in lower resolution than they available based on network conditions. Good upscaling would let you save on bandwidth and deliver content easier to people in poor network conditions. The tradeoff would be that details in the image wouldn't be exactly the same as the original - but, presumably, nobody would notice this so it would be fine.
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…
So you could downscale, then compress as usual, and then upscale on playback.
It would obviously be quite attractive to be able to ship compressed 480p (or 720p etc) footage and be able to blow it up to 4K at high quality. Of course you will have higher quality if you just compress the 4K, but the file size will be an order of magnitude larger.
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…
Are you saying low-pass filtering is bad for compression?
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.
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.
Wonder how long until Hollywood CGI shops have these types of models running as part of their post-production pipeline. Big blockbusters often release with ridiculously broken CGI due to crunch (Black Panther's third act was notorious for looking like a retro video-game), adding some extra generative polish in those cases is a no-brainer.
They will have huge budgets for compute and the makers of compute will be happy to absorb those budgets.
Cloud production was already growing but this will continue to accelerate it imho
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.
Another boon for the porn industry