3 ms·
It depends what your goal is. This is quite impressive for compressing each image down to 200 bytes. If you were actually using this for compression, this coul
by Houshalter 10y ago
It depends what your goal is. This is quite impressive for compressing each image down to 200 bytes.
If you were actually using this for compression, this could be useful.You could store the "diff" between the reconstruction and the actual pixels, which would take many fewer bits than storing the whole image. Video compression already does something like this, storing a frame, and then the following frames just being diffs to the pixels of the previous frame.
The goal of this project seems to be more artistic, so the poor quality might even be desirable.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIt's not impressive to get an image small if you delete a bunch of critical stuff out of it plus warp what remains. Ill agree on the art project part, though.
- Houshalter 10y agoWhat do you expect from compressing an image to 200 bytes? It's impressive that it has as much detail as it does.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoI expect that decompressing the image produces one that looks close enough to the original to meaningfully call it compression. This I call mostly image deletion.