71–80 of 144 posts
This is very impressive, but “perceptually lossless” isn’t a thing and doesn’t make sense. It means “lossy”.
Can you propose a better term for the concept then? Perceiving something as lossless is a real world metric that has a proper use case. "Perceptually lossless" does not try to imply that it is not lossy.
This is very impressive, but “perceptually lossless” isn’t a thing and doesn’t make sense. It means “lossy”.
"As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding." -Sloman and Fernbach
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you propose a better term for the concept then? Perceiving something as lossless is a real world metric that has a proper use case. "Perceptually lossless" does not try to imply that it is not lossy.
The term for this is "transparency." A codec is "transparent" if people can't tell the difference between the original and the compressed version.
“Perceptually lossless” is an oxymoron.
This is very impressive, but “perceptually lossless” isn’t a thing and doesn’t make sense. It means “lossy”.
"no perceived loss" is a perfectly internally consistent and sensible concept and is actually orthogonal to whether it's actually lossless or lossy.
For instance an actually lossless block of data could be perceptually lossy if displayed the wrong way.
In fact, even actual lossless data is always actually lossy, and only ever "perceptually lossless", and there is no such thing as actually lossless, because anything digital is always only a lossy approximation of anything analog. There is loss both at the ADC and at the DAC stage.
If you want to criticize a term for being nonsense misleading dishonest bullshit, then I guess "lossless" is that term, since it never existed and never can exist.
“Perceptually lossless” is an oxymoron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And also it was a deep fake. BTW This is the best sci-fi book ever.
Might be better if you like space opera style really soft science fiction. I really didn’t enjoy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be better if you like space opera style really soft science fiction. I really didn’t enjoy it.
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,…
Actually, he was a mathematics and computer science teacher at San Diego State University.