4 ms·
"with compressors that can are so good for one specific set of data that compressor + data is smaller than anything the traditional compressors could create."
by DannyBee 10y ago
"with compressors that can are so good for one specific set of data that compressor + data is smaller than anything the traditional compressors could create."
This is well, hopeful but probably wrong ... because
we already know how to make it smaller for this type of data.
The algorithms used for interframe/intraframe prediction are chosen to tradeoff speed vs size. If you built a really large-scale predictor that was able to generate very small representations for changes, you would get what he's built.
(Note that encoders already complexly select from tons of different prediction algorithms for each set of frames, etc)
We can already do this if someone wanted to.
We just don't.
Because it's not fast enough (and nothing in that work changes this)
Would it be useful to apply NN's to video encoders to better select among prediction modes, etc. Probably. But that's already being done, and is not this guy's work.
"And even if its not fast enough, it can still be a very efficient compressor, trading size for CPU.
"
The problem you have is not just compression time.
It's decompression time.
The bitstream of H265/etc is meant to be decodable fast.
What this guy is building is not.
If you were to make it so, it would probably look closer to a normal video codec bitstream, and take up that much space.
In fact, he hasn't built anything truly new, he's just using existing papers and making an implementation. He also says, in his masters thesis, that is primarily an artistic exploration.
Even with hardware decoding, you can only make stuff so fast.
TL;DR While interesting, there are people working on the things you are talking about, and it's not this guy (at least in this work).
I would not expect magic here. We already create video codec algorithms by trading off cpu cost and size. The trick is trying to get better size without increasing CPU cost significantly.
As these resources change (and remember, moore's law is pretty much dead), the video codecs will change, and videos will get smaller, but you aren't likely to see serious breakthroughs.
We already could produce very small videos by applying tremendous amounts of CPU power.
- Houshalter 10y agoIt wouldn't be decoded on the CPU, but on the GPU. Or even specialized hardware. As convnets are being used more in image processing, that isn't too unrealistic. There is interest in making specialized consumer hardware for convnets. And it doesn't need to work on every frame, it could pump out I-frames every 15 seconds or so.