Intergrading this with Adobe's object tracking software (in premier/after effects) may help.
VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
171–180 of 243 posts
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, I thought this couldn't be true, but it is. The first time I noticed annoyingly fast cuts was World War Z, for me it was unwatchable with tons of shots around 1 second each.
So sad they didn’t keep to the idea of the book. Anyone who hasn’t read this book you should, it bares no resemblance to the movie aside from the name.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#173This is great. I look forward to when cell phones run this at 60fps. It will hallucinate wrong, but pixel perfect moons and license plate numbers.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, I thought this couldn't be true, but it is. The first time I noticed annoyingly fast cuts was World War Z, for me it was unwatchable with tons of shots around 1 second each.
So sad they didn’t keep to the idea of the book. Anyone who hasn’t read this book you should, it bares no resemblance to the movie aside from the name.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#175Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#176The video of the owl is a great example of doing a terrible job without the average Joe noticing. The real owl has fine light/dark concentric circles on its face. The app turned it into gray because it does not see any sign of the circles. The real owl has streaks of spots. The app turned them into solid streaks because it saw no sign of spots. There's more where this came from, but basically only looks good to someo…
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#177Video 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.
If you're using this for existing material you just cut into <=8 second chunks, no big deal. Could be an absolute boon for filmmakers, otoh a nightmare for privacy because this will be applied to surveillance footage.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#178Earlier 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.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#179Earlier 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.
7s is pretty alright, I've seen HLS chunks of 6 seconds, that's pretty common I think.
For live streaming it's pretty common to see 2 or 3 seconds (reduces broadcast delay, but with some caveats).
0: https://dev.to/100mslive/introduction-to-low-latency-streami...
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average shot length in a modern movie is around 2.5 seconds (down from 12 seconds in 1930's). For animations it's around 15 seconds.
Huh, I thought this couldn't be true, but it is. The first time I noticed annoyingly fast cuts was World War Z, for me it was unwatchable with tons of shots around 1 second each.