Re: Averaging preprocessor

Lourens Veen wrote:

> Hmm, I can't see why this would be better than for example MPEG
> simply reusing a block in the next frame at the same location. The
> only difference is the averaging, which would indeed save some
> noise, but I don't see how it would be more efficient to compress.

With block based coders it is sometimes easier to encode something by using more
bits on texture than on motion, so the motion vectors do not represent true
motion, and it uses big blocks with a lot of motion mismatch for the same reason
... because of this it is hard during encoding to see what is noise and what is
detail.

Even with MPEG it is more efficient to do denoising before encoding with "true
motion" motion estimation and smaller blocks.

Marco

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to '[email protected]'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.