3 ms·

existing algorithms do a lot of compression across frame-sequences, but yeah not quite in the same way as the imputed volume. I wonder if your idea would work

• vidarh 3y ago
  I suspect you'd need your compression to "understand" the object relationships and camera movement to do better than frame sequences, and it'd probably still be incredibly hard because you then add a lot of extra information first in the hope they let you discard more pixel data... But the more you understand the scene, the more you can potentially outright reconstruct, and in some contexts more loss would be entirely fine if the artifacts are plausible.
  • jacquesm 3y ago
    That's exactly where I ended with this: I was decomposing the scene and realized that if you had the ability to do that reliably enough you'd be recreating a model rather than an image and then re-rendering that model. But at that point I don't think you are looking at a compression algorithm any more other than in the very broadest sense of the word. Boundaries between objects would start to look fuzzy otherwise. As in: you'd no longer know exactly where the table ended and the hand started unless you modeled it precisely enough and at that point you have an object model. So you might as well use it to render the whole scene. Note that I did this in '98 or so, when there was less of a computational budget, maybe what I couldn't hack back then is feasible today.