Re: Averaging preprocessor

On Tue 17 December 2002 20:59, Marco Al wrote:
> 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.

But:
> c) for each block, decide if the contents is still essentially
>      the same as in last N frames (i.e. nothing has occluded the
>      picture, picture has not moved and there has not been a cut
>      in the video)

So it's given that there is no motion at all, right?

Lourens
--=20
GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key

--- >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.