• whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Compression artifacts will exist as long as we use lossy video compression. You can however eliminate visible to the eye artifacts with high enough bitrate, but that has always been the case.

    Considering the ungodly size of raw video or even video with lossless compression, we will need lossy compression for the next century.

    It will only change if the bandwidth and storage become practically free, which would require some unforseen breakthrough in technology.

    • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s so rare to see someone speak the voice of reason on future technology matters. People think we’ll be able to do anything, when there are physical limits to just how far we can advance current technology.

      Even if we invented something new, you have to deal with the size restrictions of atoms. Silicon has an atomic radius of 1.46 Å, gold 1.35 Å, and our current process for manufacturing that’s in development is a 2 nm, or 20 Å process, although that number doesn’t mean much, since the measurements are closer to 20 nm (metal pitch). There are experiments dating back about a decade where someone created a transistor out of a phosphorus atom. We’re a lot closer to the end than we might realize.

      • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        As you mentioned chip lithography is hitting a wall. They’re not going to be able to make things much smaller with current technology. People have been working on new ways to build these mechanisms. They’re researching ways to do things at the quantum level, that’s some seriously sci-fi tech.

    • Nuwanda@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Considering the ungodly size of raw video or even video with lossless compression, we will need lossy compression for the next century.

      The technology for film photography (which was later used for video) existed for a century before digital was popular ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    People definitely already add some of the tracking and other artifacts from VHS to videos. It’s decently common on YouTube

    • Nuwanda@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I had not.

      The future is now.

      Although I’m not so sure if the intentional ones are compression artifacts or corrupt digital video artifacts. The video itself is low quality with unintentional compression artifacts.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    They could. But why wouldn’t they just actually compress the video?

    In digital/streaming video, there is no physical tape which produces grain, so there is no choice but to add it in post. But if you’re serving up digital video, then you can simply just serve up an authentic compression/bitrate/resolution.

    I suppose maybe players in the future won’t support the codecs we use today?

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      They might do that, in a dynamic fashion. However, if it’s being used artistically, they likely will want a particular effect. Having greater control over the artifacts might be useful. E.g. lots of artifacts, but none happening to effect the face of the actor, while they are actually speaking.

      They might also only want 1 type of artifact, but not another. E.g. want blocking, but not black compression.

  • QubaXR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nah, they will keep using interlace effect centuries after the last cathode ray tube burns out…