3 ms·
Dropping of certain pixels is a very peculiar way of reducing input quality. Why was that method chosen? For 3D rendering I guess that's a kind of DLSS, but th
by pornel 7y ago
Dropping of certain pixels is a very peculiar way of reducing input quality. Why was that method chosen?
For 3D rendering I guess that's a kind of DLSS, but the paper focuses on video compression.
For video streams that doesn't seem to make sense. Video codecs are not pixel-based, but block/frequency based, so you can't save any bandwidth by dropping pixels. Raw pixels don't compress well, especially less correlated samples like that, so I wouldn't be surprised if sending just the reduced input for this algorithm was more costly than sending a full video stream. And existing video codecs can already very effectively vary quality within the frame by varying block sizes and quantization.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Lorkki 7y ago"Compression" is probably just poorly chosen wording. This has more to do with reducing the number of required samples in applications like eye-tracking VR, where you can choose to render a dense image for the part that the user is looking at, while reducing detail in peripheral vision. Current implementations use some fractional resolution(s) for the periphery and blend pixels using more traditional methods, which results in blurryness and/or aliasing artifacts.