←back to thread

296 points jakub_g | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Springtime ◴[] No.45011126[source]
Youtube says this was done for select Youtube Shorts as a denoising process. However most popular channels on Youtube, which seem to be the pool selected for this experiment, typically already have well lit and graded videos shouldn't benefit much from extra denoising from a visual point of view.

It's true though that aggressive denoising gives things an artificially generated look since both processes use denoising heavily.

Perhaps this was done to optimize video encoding, since the less noise/surface detail there is the easier it is to compress.

replies(3): >>45011162 #>>45011186 #>>45011544 #
zozbot234 ◴[] No.45011544[source]
> Perhaps this was done to optimize video encoding, since the less noise/surface detail there is the easier it is to compress.

If so it's really just another kind of lossy compression. No different in principle from encoding a video to AV-1 format.

replies(1): >>45011709 #
1. Springtime ◴[] No.45011709[source]
Given the denoising is said to be aggressive enough to be noticeable on already compressed video I think criticism of it is fair. Just that it should be distinguished from something like Tiktok's 'beautifier' modifications, which from titles like the BBC's come to mind.