Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

mlumiste.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#111

Post by exe34 »

com2kid wrote: post #96
mercutio2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. Vinge is about the furthest from “soft” sci-fi I can think of. We must have very different definitions of what makes something soft. It’s certainly true that Vinge doesn’t spend much time on the engineering details, but I find him unusually clear on “imagine if we had this kind of impossible-now technology, but the rest of what we know about physics remained, how would people behave?” He was, after all,…

> Fascinating. Vinge is about the furthest from “soft” sci-fi I can think of. We must have very different definitions of what makes something soft. That award goes to Greg Egan who has full list of citations on his website for each of his novels, as well as a list of mathematicians and physicists he requested help from. If you want to read books that occasionally delve into pages of equations, Greg Egan is the author…

i might have to have another go at dichronauts. that one broke my mind a few pages in and I had to stop.

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#112

Post by exe34 »

Retric wrote: post #94
jrussino wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Soft vs hard is based on how closely the world tracks with modern physics/science Maybe it's not productive to quibble about definitions like this, but FWIW I don't agree with this criteria. I would argue Greg Egan's work, for example, is just about the "hardest" sci-fi there is, and yet much of that work takes place in universes that are entirely unlike our own. Personally, I think what makes for "hard" sci-fi is…

If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter. It’s one of those definitions that allows anything and ultimately only feels fine because you’re adding some other criteria. In defense of hard science fiction, it’s a meaningful category to talk about even if it’s not something you personally care about. People often want to weaken it but that just opens a door for a new cate…

> If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter

the laws of the universe in Harry Potter are so fickle and ever changing with the plot line that to me, it can only be considered soft. compare with Egan who takes a given cosmology and then works 100% within that world. that's hard.

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#113

Post by [deleted] »

exe34 wrote: post #112
Retric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter. It’s one of those definitions that allows anything and ultimately only feels fine because you’re adding some other criteria. In defense of hard science fiction, it’s a meaningful category to talk about even if it’s not something you personally care about. People often want to weaken it but that just opens a door for a new cate…

> If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter the laws of the universe in Harry Potter are so fickle and ever changing with the plot line that to me, it can only be considered soft. compare with Egan who takes a given cosmology and then works 100% within that world. that's hard.

[deleted]

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#114

Post by smokel »

zbobet2012 wrote: post #102

These sorts of models pop here quite a bit, and they ignore fundamental facts of video codecs (video specific lossy compression technologies). Traditional codecs have always focused on trade offs among encode complexity, decode complexity, and latency. Where complexity = compute. If every target device ran a 4090 at full power, we could go far below 22kbps with a traditional codec techniques for content like this. 22…

Why so sour? This particular article doesn't seem to ignore a lot, it even references the Nvidia work that inspired it, as well as a recent benchmark.

Someone was just having fun here, it's not as if they present it as a general codec.

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#115

Post by Rebelgecko »

gwd wrote: post #43

This reminds me of a scene in "A Fire Upon the Deep" (1992) where they're on a video call with someone on another spaceship; but something seems a bit "off". Then someone notices that the actual bitrate they're getting from the other vessel is tiny -- far lower than they should be getting given the conditions -- and so most of what they're seeing on their own screens isn't actual video feed, but their local computer'…

Was that the same book that had the concept of (paraphrasing using modern terminology) doing interstellar communications by sending back and forth LLMs trained on the people who wanted to talk, prompted to try and get a good business deal or whatever?

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#116

Post by Dwedit »

_ZeD_ wrote: post #18
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

This is very impressive, but “perceptually lossless” isn’t a thing and doesn’t make sense. It means “lossy”.

also are .mp3, yet they are hardly discernible from the originals

Lossy audio formats suddenly become very discernible once you subtract the left channel from the right channel. Try that with Lossless audio vs MP3, Vorbis, Opus, AAC, etc. You're listening to only the errors at that point.

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#117

Post by Retric »

exe34 wrote: post #112
Retric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter. It’s one of those definitions that allows anything and ultimately only feels fine because you’re adding some other criteria. In defense of hard science fiction, it’s a meaningful category to talk about even if it’s not something you personally care about. People often want to weaken it but that just opens a door for a new cate…

> If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter the laws of the universe in Harry Potter are so fickle and ever changing with the plot line that to me, it can only be considered soft. compare with Egan who takes a given cosmology and then works 100% within that world. that's hard.

That’s not a question about the underlying rules of a fictional work but your perception of how they are created. It’s possible to have a completely well defined fantasy setting with exact rules without the reader being aware of what those rules are or even knowing it’s using well defined rules.

Consider The Martian, early versions where posted online and the author changed what resources the character had to work with at the beginning. So what feels like a creative solution to limited resources was really giving the character exactly what they needed after a solution was found. Only examining a work we can’t distinguish ‘soft’ physics updated as the plot demands from a story based around fixed rules.

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#118

Post by lifthrasiir »

rini17 wrote: post #86
lifthrasiir wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps only if you have highly restricted set of posible input, which online meetings aren't. Are you sure? After all, you can effectively summarize meetings in a plain text which is extremely restricted in comparison to the original input. Guaranteed, exact manner of speech and motions and all subtleties should be also included to be fair, but that information is still far limited to fill the 20 kbps bandwidth. W…

Okay, did not know you measure distortion that way.

If you wonder, that definition is pretty much universal in the lossy compression (e.g. rate-distortion optimization or RDO).

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#119

Post by burnished »

Retric wrote: post #94
jrussino wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Soft vs hard is based on how closely the world tracks with modern physics/science Maybe it's not productive to quibble about definitions like this, but FWIW I don't agree with this criteria. I would argue Greg Egan's work, for example, is just about the "hardest" sci-fi there is, and yet much of that work takes place in universes that are entirely unlike our own. Personally, I think what makes for "hard" sci-fi is…

If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter. It’s one of those definitions that allows anything and ultimately only feels fine because you’re adding some other criteria. In defense of hard science fiction, it’s a meaningful category to talk about even if it’s not something you personally care about. People often want to weaken it but that just opens a door for a new cate…

Harry Potter isnt typically considered scifi because it doesn't critically examine its own premise and because the rules of the universe are yoked to the needs of the plot.

Re: Perceptually lossless (talking head) video compression at 22kbit/s

#120

Post by Retric »

burnished wrote: post #119
Retric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If changing the laws of the universe is fine, then nothing gets excluded even Harry Potter. It’s one of those definitions that allows anything and ultimately only feels fine because you’re adding some other criteria. In defense of hard science fiction, it’s a meaningful category to talk about even if it’s not something you personally care about. People often want to weaken it but that just opens a door for a new cate…

Harry Potter isnt typically considered scifi because it doesn't critically examine its own premise and because the rules of the universe are yoked to the needs of the plot.

> the rules of the universe are yoked to the needs of the plot

It’s common for the rules of the universe to be adapted to fit the plot of random Star Trek episodes.

HP is not considered science fiction because of the trappings of the story. People use spells and enchanted objects for telekinesis, teleportation, and time travel not psychic abilities and technology to do the same things.

> critically examine its own premise

A great deal of science fiction doesn’t do that while plenty of fantasy does.

Post reply on HN