Live data from Hacker News

VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

videogigagan.github.io

71–80 of 243 posts

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#71

Have we reached peak image sensor size. Would it still make sense to shoot in fullframe when you can just upscale.

If you want to use your image for anything that needs to be factual (i.e. surveillance, science, automation) the up-scaling adds nothing---it's just guessing on what is probably there.

If you just want the picture to be pretty, this is probably cheaper than a bigger sensor.

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#72
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An image downscaled and then upscaled to its original size is effectively low-pass filtered where the degree of edge preservation is dictated by the kernel used in both cases. Are you saying low-pass filtering is bad for compression?

Do you seriously think down sampling is superior to JPEG?

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're missing the point of this paper—the precise thing it's showing is upscaling previously downscaled video with minimal perceptual differences from ground truth. 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…

Why would you not enhance the compressed data?

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#74
This is great for entertainment (and hopefully the main application), but we need clear marking of such type of videos before hallucinated details are used as "proofs" of any kind by people not knowing how this works. Software video/photography on smartphones is already using proprietary algorithms that "infer" non-existent or fake details, and this would be at an even bigger scale.

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#75
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 24fps that's not even 10 seconds. Calling it extremely long is kinda defensive.

10 seconds is what, about a dozen cuts in a modern movie? Much longer has people pulling out their phones.

:( "Our model encounters challenges when processing >200 frame videos"

:) "Our model is proven production-ready using real-world footage from Taken 3"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#76

Finally, we get to know whether the Patterson bigfoot film is authentic.

I can't wait for the next explosion in "bigfoot" videos: wildlife on the moon, people hiding in shadows, plants, animals, and structures completely out of place.

The difference will be that this time the images will be crystal clear, just hallucinated by a neural network.

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#78

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.

It's not so much that it would be impratical (video streaming, like HLS or MPEG-Dash, requires to chunk videos in pieces of roughly this size) but you'd lose the inter-frame consistency at segments boundaries, and I suspect the resulting video would be flickering at the transition.

It could work for TV or movies if done properly at the scene transition time though.

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#79
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years if not less. 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

Wasn't Hollywood an early adopter of advanced AI video stuff, w.r.t. de-aging old famous actors?

yeah and the only reason we don't see more of it was prohibitively expensive for all but basically Disney.

the compute budgets for basic run of the mill small screen 3D rendering and 2D compositing is already massive compared to most other businesses of a similar scale. the industry has been under paying their artists for decades too.

I'm willing to bet that as soon as unreal or adobe or whoever comes out with a stable diffusion like model that can be consistent across a feature length movie, they'll stop bothering with artists altogether.

why have an entire team of actual people in the loop when the director can just tell the model what they want to see? why shy away from revisions when the model can update colour grade or edit a character model throughout the entire film without needing to re-render?

Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution

#80
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that when Netflix streams a 480p version of a 4k movie to my TV they do not perform downsampling?

Yes. Down sampling makes only sense if you store per pixel data, which is obviously a dumb idea. You get a stream for 480p which contains frames which were compressed from the source files, or the 4k version. At some point there might have been down sampling involved, but you never actually get any of that data, you get the compressed version of those.

Not sure if I’m being dumb, or if it’s you not explaining it clearly: if Neflix produced low resolution frames from high resolution (4k to 480p), and if these 480p frames are what my TV is receiving - are you saying it’s not downsampling, and my TV would not benefit from this new upsampling method?
Post reply on HN