[HN Gopher] Film grain synthesis in AV1 (2019) ___________________________________________________________________ Film grain synthesis in AV1 (2019) Author : pantalaimon Score : 31 points Date : 2022-07-18 21:08 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (norkin.org) (TXT) w3m dump (norkin.org) | NonNefarious wrote: | I had no idea AV1 or any other codec provided for this. Pretty | interesting! | | What would undermine it is imperfect removal of real noise or | grain from the source material: Then you'd have some remnants of | the original grain, plus the synthesized grain... an incorrect | result. It seems that this scheme requires perfectly clean input | images. | | I hope this idea is taken further, and it becomes the norm among | codecs or wrappers to provide room for an author-defined post- | processing shader to be applied after decompression. | asojfdowgh wrote: | the synthesized noise only covers what is removed by the | denoiser, so it all adds up to what the input is (assuming the | left-in noise makes it through the encoder) | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | It really doesn't. The whole reason this technique works is | that our brain generally processes effects like noise and grain | in terms of macro properties, and even if none of the pixels | are anywhere like the right value, it will still look "right" | as long as the noise distribution is closish. | klodolph wrote: | Various audio codecs have the same thing. They will synthesize | background noise. The amount of background noise and the rough | frequency spectrum are encoded in the stream. | | If you removed the noise, it would sound a bit weird. For | telephone calls in particular, the background noise lets you | know that the phone call is connected. If you filter it out, | people think that the call was dropped. | detaro wrote: | In the phone case it's even called "comfort noise" | babypuncher wrote: | I'm not sure I like the idea of a film's photography | potentially looking different based on the decoder used. I | would much rather dedicate additional bits to preserving the | noise that was present in the original film stock or added | during post-production. | | Storage and bandwidth are only getting cheaper. | rootw0rm wrote: | Film grain synthesis? Oh man, I don't know how I feel about this | one. Without viewing any comparisons, my first reaction is...why | not just higher bitrate instead? | Ameo wrote: | Film grain is similar to noise which by definition compresses | extremely poorly. By actually modeling the way the film grain | is produced, they can avoid sending what is essentially random | data over the wire while still preserving the visual effect of | the film grain itself. That way, the bitrate can be spent to | encode the actual video data at a higher quality. | simbas wrote: | you did a good job | pornel wrote: | This can be said about every lossy compression technique. Why | do quantization that throws away details, and not send higher | bitrate instead? Why do edge prediction that can smudge things, | and not send higher bitrate instead? Why do inter-frame | prediction which can cause wobbly motion and not send higher | bitrate instead? | | The answer always is that the technique allows better use of | bandwidth, so you can have a better image without increasing | bandwidth. Or if you're able to increase the bandwidth, you can | have _even better_ picture with the technique than without it | (until the bandwidth is so high that you can send the video | uncompressed, but that 's not happening anytime soon for video | on the web). | babypuncher wrote: | Think of how much money Netflix saves by streaming movies to | your TV at 5mbps instead of 10mbps. Serving a single user, | the cost difference is negligible, but across 120 million | users it probably saves them millions in bandwidth costs. | | I still buy blu-rays though so I am a firm believe in the | "just throw more bits at it" solution. | klodolph wrote: | I like this quote from the article, | | > The correct answer to this question is that often the choice | is not between the original film grain and the synthesized one. | When video is transmitted over a channel with limited | bandwidth, the choice is often between not having the film | grain at all (or having the grain significantly distorted by | compression) and having synthesized grain that looks | subjectively similar to the original one. | | Film grain doesn't compress well. If you buy a 1080p Blu-ray | disk, you can get a bit rate of something like 40 Mbit/s. Go | watch 1080p video on Netflix, and you're going to get something | closer to 5 Mbit/s. Yes, the codecs are different--yes, you can | talk all you want about how everything is going to be fast when | we all get 5G--but this is still the ground reality that most | people are working with. The bit rate is more of a constraint | you have to work within than a variable you can just tweak to | get the results you want. | | By comparison, ProRes 422 has a target bit rate of 147 Mbit/s | for 1920x1080@29.97. | babypuncher wrote: | Blu-Ray came out 16 years ago and streaming services still | haven't really caught up in image quality. Physical media | still has some life left in it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-18 23:00 UTC)