Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Pixels to be superseded by vector codec technology


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

contourised-street-scene

There's just been some pretty startling research published by a university in the UK which could herald the biggest change to imaging since the switch from film to digital.

Indeed before it has even begun, 4K may become obsolete along with resolution itself - killed not by 8K or Super-Hi Vision but a completely different kind of technology. A vector based video codec has been developed at the University of Bath.


  • Taxrummawoodo likes this

#2 Leang

Leang

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Locationİstanbul

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:06 PM

I've come to learn that you like to theorize any imaging research with filmmaking!



#3 jcs

jcs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

Higher level image compression has been a long time goal in the industry. A few years ago fractal compression was thought to be promising, however it proved to be hard to tune and generalize. Wavelets were also promising, but so far only work reasonably well for static frames. Using textured vector contours sounds interesting. Looking at the PDF paper there were limited examples- hopefully it does indeed generalize and could prove useful in moving image compression technology forward. For video, I didn't see anything in the paper discussing bitrates and efficiency (sounded like it was all I-frame so far (no interpolation between frames)). Without interpolation frames, it won't be able to compete with the tried and true motion-estimated DCT methods (which effectively move textured blocks around- quite efficient).

 

Also note that this technology won't allow scaling an image up without it becoming soft. The contours will be detailed, but the internal texture (pixels) will get soft. Someday it will be possible to analyze and generalize texture detail, so it can be synthesized with very little data, at any desired resolution. This would of course be an iterated system, using DNA/fractal-like generators (the DNA code for a human being can be compressed down to the size of a single JPEG image, for example- the ultimate compression known to man at this time).

 

"You are data: 4MB to be exact" http://www.stemcellc.../bioinformatics



#4 Saturn

Saturn

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSilicon Valley, California

Posted 07 February 2013 - 07:45 PM

Fractals from the 1980es rehashed. Same "resolution-independent" promise - and empty promise.



#5 Bart van der Horst

Bart van der Horst

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:19 PM

I don't think resolution won't be an issue anymore, but the square pixel is gone. Which perhaps gives an analog feel... and first of all will change digital zooming in.



#6 Marino215

Marino215

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, Pa

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:08 AM

What's our vector Victor? Great article, well written on such a complicated subject. I get it and think wow! No more tiresome 2k 4k or 8k talk. Thanks

#7 Marino215

Marino215

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, Pa

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:09 AM

^ And p.s. I love my avatar. Thanks

#8 JR Lipartito

JR Lipartito

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:11 AM

With 4k already bringing us to the point of diminishing returns, something like this seems like the logical next step forward. Here's to hoping pixels be made obsolete before Sony starts trying to sell us utterly useless 8k TV's.



#9 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,727 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:18 AM

8K is certainly useless for TVs... I'd even go so far as to say TVs are dying. The internet is the new TV and when I want to watch something where image quality is a factor I project it onto a 100 inch wall!

 

In the UK TV is still very much part of the living room but the next generation I feel have moved on from it.

 

Getting back to resolution... I think there's always going to be a measure of detail but it might not be pixels :)



#10 Xiong

Xiong

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:31 AM

8K is certainly useless for TVs... I'd even go so far as to say TVs are dying. The internet is the new TV and when I want to watch something where image quality is a factor I project it onto a 100 inch wall!

 

In the UK TV is still very much part of the living room but the next generation I feel have moved on from it.

 

Getting back to resolution... I think there's always going to be a measure of detail but it might not be pixels :)

 

Frankly I dont watch TV anymore. If Im interested in content from a provider/user, subscribing on youtube or vimeo is alot more keen to finding my viewing taste, it also helps in avoiding crap/exploitative television shows like Honey Bu Bu and Jersey Shore... Fuck those shows... and alot more pointless television shows. Its like trying to find a needle in a haystack looking for great shows and time wise compared to just watching content online when I want it.

 

I usually just link my laptop/desktop to my tv, done. Bye bye regular tv.



#11 JR Lipartito

JR Lipartito

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:43 AM

Regular television is dead, as in the old spoon-fed programming model. But I think TV sets will live on, whether people stream to them from their computers or access on-demand content directly from them. Internet connected smart TV's are the future of "television" where the TV is just an extension of your computer. TV's are all around better than laptops or desktop monitors for kicking back and enjoying your favorite films, although I agree projecting onto a 100-inch wall beats them all... if you can afford the space!



#12 jgharding

jgharding

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,247 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:52 AM

To me, the most exciting idea here is one of replacing square pixels with irregular film gran shapes at capture. That would be wonderful. Think scanned film vectorised to a very fine degree, as opposed to a block of blocks.


http://www.jgharding.com

Consults, directs and shoots. Loves shadows...

#13 markm

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:36 AM

I hope TV isn't dying. I don't understand this but national TV FEELS like we as a country are watching together Somehow sharing a collective memory that makes us more together if that makes any sense. Thats why I don't like watching programs I've recorded as much as Live TV.

The internet is like a land of opportunity that promises more than it delivers and often a waste of time. Although it is great for buying stuff and to look up information sometimes and as a way to find what's happening in a chosen hobby.

 

I think there is plenty of room for both and TV is watched just as much even if it is spread over hundreds of satellite channels that mostly show repeats of the the three main channels. Effectively then just extensions of the three main channels.

 

As film makers the internet is a dead loss. short films like how to clean your vagina and have you got chlamidiya get the views. TV is quality control guaranteed of a certain standard The internet is trawl through a thousand films and you might find something you would regard as normal on TV.

 

The internet has sites like You tube Vimeo etc that are led by those with their own agenda. Those who decide you will or will not go through and are becoming more and more godly and contemptuuos of mere internet mortals.

 

The internet freedom is often not empowering just the ability to roam an unstructured undisciplined landscape with plenty of ill will meanness and self indulgent up themselves self appointed leaders cracking the whip. How often do you see web sites with fans praising their leaders or bootboys shutting down any criticism.

 

Not the sort of place conducive to becoming a succesful film maker. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact TV cinema is still the best way to go for a structured disciplened arena to have a fighting chance to do things right.

 

Anyway this new Vector Codec looks perfectly timed to be the next next big thing!



#14 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:24 AM

I can't see this getting much further than the lab, unfortunately.

 

Complex vector animations are ridiculously CPU intensive, and this must be very, very, very complex.



#15 Saturn

Saturn

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSilicon Valley, California

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:05 PM

The death of TV is greatly exaggerated.

 

Yes, it may be considered as a spoon-fed approach, but to have a product of quality you need

 

1) Script of quality (writers)

2) Continuous effort of many-many people in the production.

 

Unfortunately all those people want to be paid so either movie or TV provides a model for them to be paid for the effort.

 

Otherwise (originally brought by the threat of the writers' strike) it will be 'something' - as crappy as 'reality TV' - just on internet.



#16 AaronChicago

AaronChicago

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:14 PM

The death of TV is greatly exaggerated.

 

Yes, it may be considered as a spoon-fed approach, but to have a product of quality you need

 

1) Script of quality (writers)

2) Continuous effort of many-many people in the production.

 

Unfortunately all those people want to be paid so either movie or TV provides a model for them to be paid for the effort.

 

Otherwise (originally brought by the threat of the writers' strike) it will be 'something' - as crappy as 'reality TV' - just on internet.

I don't think they're arguing television content is dying. Just the actually device. If anything, television shows are passing cinema in quality of storytelling.



#17 Saturn

Saturn

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSilicon Valley, California

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:37 PM

Jan 13, 2012

 

"According to new consumer research from Leichtman Research Group, 69% of households in the United States have at least one high definition television set, up from 17% in 2006. Over the past five years, 52% of US households adopted HDTV."

 

http://www.mediapost...l#axzz2KdWrLcPZ

 

that means that 52% of US households bould a NEW HDTV set in 2006-2011 time period.

 

Hardly "TV dying as a actually device".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users