4 ms·
How I understood it, the name refers this NIPS 2016 paper (http://carlvondrick.com/tinyvideo/ http://carlvondrick.com/tinyvideo/) in which video-generation happ
by firefred 9y ago
How I understood it, the name refers this NIPS 2016 paper (http://carlvondrick.com/tinyvideo/ http://carlvondrick.com/tinyvideo/) in which video-generation happens in a two-stream architecture; therefore, relying on a static background. The approach posted here is generating videos in a single stream from what I see. Therefore it does not rely on such assumptions. This is possible by their architecture, on the one hand, and optimization within the WGAN framework on the the other hand. The dropped assumption on the background also allows using the architecture for different applications if you look at their homepage.
- alew1 9y agoThanks. I can see that this is a useful experiment, and I'm glad that the authors did it. It's just not clear to me that their model is new or needs a special name; isn't this single-stream approach just the simplest interpretation of "using a WGAN to generate video" (just generate all the pixel data)? If anything, the two-stream architecture you link to seems like the special case/new idea.
- firefred 9y agoFrom my experience, I would say its the regular approach yes. But, since all pixels are generated and not copied from a static background image it is also much harder and probably unstable. Apparently it was not possible so far, otherwise, I cannot explain the gap in publications since the NIPS-2016 paper.