3 ms·
It really is gone. You can predict what you think it might have been, but you can't know what it was.
by ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
It really is gone. You can predict what you think it might have been, but you can't know what it was.
- memoriuaysj 10mo agoit's gone in a single still frame but across many consecutive frames, the information is spread out temporaly and can be recovered (partially) the same principle of how you can get a high resolution image from a short video, by extracting the same patch from multiple frames https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_super-resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_super-resolution
- weinzierl 10mo agoThat looks interesting. Is there ready-made software that can do this? Doesn't have to be easy to use just useable with a time commitment of a few days.
- ErroneousBosh 10mo agoNo, it's not "restoring detail". The information is gone. It is predicting what the information might maybe have been like.
- memoriuaysj 10mo agoyou are arguing with math proofs here, the information is not gone, if it was a real video (as opposed to adversarily generated video)
- ErroneousBosh 10mo agoI'm struggling with the idea that you can use maths to recover information from a video that simply was not present in the video. I get that what you're describing can statisically "unblur" stuff you've blurred with overly-simplistic algorithms. I can provide you with real-world footage that has "natural" motion blur in it, if you can demonstrate this technique working? I'd really like to see how it's done.