3 ms·

and you could also use it to just accuracy (or at least consistency) of the algorithm. Sounds like a good follow up paper.

• dylan604 7y ago
  In the early days of VR, I did the equivalent of this test. The software to stitch stills was much more robust than the the nascent versions of software handling video. As an experiment, I ran the video through the video software, and then did the export to image sequence and had the stills software apply the same settings to the image sequence. When the image sequence was converted back to video, you could see how the stills software made different decisions for each frame resulting in a very psychedelic video. With more tweaking the trippy effect was reduced but not eliminated, and the video software was updated to become much more robust (and impressive). As a primarily video guy, I always laugh to myself (sometimes not to myself) at the amount of effort photo editors spend on a single image. I remind them that the video world has to do that same level of work, except x24 per second multiplied by number of seconds. Photoshop is cool, but Nuke is mindblowing
  • 666lumberjack 7y ago
    >I remind them that the video world has to do that same level of work, except x24 per second multiplied by number of seconds. While this is true, video frames only have to stand up to scrutiny for ~40ms. You can take a lot of clever shortcuts when an onlooker only has a fraction of a second to spot the rough edges!
    • dylan604 7y ago
      The one crux to my argument. Thanks for knocking me back down from my high horse