Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
5th March 2009, 13:47 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
|
Fractal-based encoding & decoding
Hi folks,
Over ten years ago people were all excited about fractal-based image compression. At the time computers were really too slow to either encode or decode quickly. Of course now, that has changed. But I wonder if anyone has even considered implementing something like the following for films? This guy got 24:1 compression for images. http://www.verrando.com/pulcini/gp-uw1.html -Vario |
5th March 2009, 17:19 | #2 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
With good old JPEG I can get 24:1 compression for images easily, but it doesn't take 6 minutes. So what?
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 5th March 2009 at 17:36. |
5th March 2009, 21:07 | #3 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8
|
I think one of the more interesting features that's been touted about fractal compression is it's spatial scalability. That is, since it (I believe) works by finding regions of self-similarity between the full size image and a downsized version of the image, you can use this same information to scale the image up and decode it at a larger size, with (it's been argued) better quality than traditional upscaling methods. But it seems fractal encoding never left the realm of being a toy for academics, I imagine mostly because of the abysmal speed.
|
5th March 2009, 23:12 | #5 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,348
|
Mostly by being completly different in every important way. Also by being useless.
[edit] Additionally, this isn't real fractal compression (which has never been accomplished) its pseudo-block-fractal compression, which is more akin to a bad multiscale vector quantization scheme then anything else. Last edited by *.mp4 guy; 5th March 2009 at 23:18. |
5th March 2009, 23:25 | #6 | Link |
interlace this!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,555
|
i wonder if it could be applied to DCT's or some other abstracted frequency plot of the image (or part of it).
sort of like finding "harmonics" and encoding to the nearest deterministic version? like a kind of super-slow-possibly-useless trellis quantization? it seems doing it on an image is pointless because the vast array of natural images only contain self-similarity of the type needed in areas completely ignored by the human visual system. images seem to be best represented as quantized frequencies. but maybe fractals can work on that data rather than the raw image data?
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004 |
12th March 2009, 00:43 | #8 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
I spent waaay to much time working with Iterated's technologies ~12 years ago... |
|
18th March 2009, 13:17 | #9 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 46
|
I think Genuine Fractals achieved some degree of success in the image fractal compression domain. While it's primarily been in the scaling field I believe their compression format did get some degree of use since it was quite high at the time for lossless compression (I remember testing it in ~1997 and it was the best of all those I tested at the select few files I used). Now that size is no longer an issue for most people when it comes to images give the price of HDDs etc I suspect this had died down but I think they had some success. Their big problem was probably that size was never an extremely great issue when it came to images for many people and so the risk of using a proprietary and undocuments image compression format was too great. I mean heck even JPEG2000 never took off in most areas.
One interesting is that it looks like fractal compression has been largely ignored for the past 10+ years and many of the original patents are surely close to expiring. Perhaps it's actually a good area for someone who's looking to make a patent free video codec to explore? Last edited by Nil Einne; 18th March 2009 at 13:24. |
21st June 2012, 22:48 | #10 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 49
|
i know about this : FIASCO ([F]ractal [I]mage [A]nd [S]equence [CO]dec)
Is open source but not for windows. http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/4367/print https://github.com/megatherion/Fiasco Last edited by dadix; 21st June 2012 at 22:55. |
24th June 2012, 17:18 | #11 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
Quote:
And yeah they later became successful with Genuine Fractals for Image Scaling One of those iterated Marketing guys does Digital Video Solution Reviews these days for Streaming Media and he evaluated Mainconcept H.264 vs x264 that's quiet funny http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...ial-80112.aspx Quote:
i mean could they really foll Microsoft with one of the biggest Research entities in the World to use their Product quiet amazing to think about it Though i remember nothing else did Microsoft with Hollywood before FRExt was ready selling their VC-1 to Hollywood executives as the sharpest thing in Town bringing Film Grain to life, though Microsofts PSY work imho is still amazing also if it gets unnoticed most of the times in all the blocks Ben i still use your Vegas.wmv encode very often btw
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 Last edited by CruNcher; 24th June 2012 at 18:29. |
||
12th July 2012, 19:37 | #12 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Has anyone done a good comparison of fractal-based scaling compare to other modern scaling techniques.
H.264 High Profile I-frames outperform JPEG 2000 and JPEG-XR in compression efficiency, and HEVC/H.265 should be even better for still images. Bigger intra blocks are a big helper for very hgih resolution images. One of the reasons fractals and wavelets haven't made for promising video codecs is that no one has found a good way to couple motion estimation with them. Block-based motion estimation is really strong, and having symmetry between intra and inter coding is quite valuable in compression efficiency and decoder complexity. |
15th July 2012, 15:41 | #13 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
Quote:
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 Last edited by CruNcher; 15th July 2012 at 15:54. |
|
16th July 2012, 19:17 | #14 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Either the transform has to be SO much better than DCT that a basic implementation of it beats modern DCT implementations, or the new transform needs to be implemented with brilliant refinement. That requires a frothy mix of genius, time, and money that is hard to find for a blue-sky, high-risk codec. It's hard to really even evaluate new basic codec ideas for these reasons, since it's hard to predict how good a radical new idea would be once it is highly refined. |
|
Tags |
codec, encoding, fractal |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|