[HN Gopher] Video encoding requires using your eyes
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Video encoding requires using your eyes
        
       Author : zdw
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2025-02-28 04:33 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (redvice.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (redvice.org)
        
       | okramcivokram wrote:
       | I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image
       | that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake
       | details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks
       | exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
        
         | sgarland wrote:
         | It's mostly only visible in the closeup of the kid. There are
         | hairs that have been unnecessarily accentuated, and his eye and
         | eyebrow outline look hyper-sharpened, with rough edges.
         | 
         | The non-zoomed image looks fine to me, and I (to some extent)
         | know what I'm looking for. Some private torrent trackers that
         | pride themselves on having transparent encodes will look for
         | this kind of stuff; you have to do multiple test encodes
         | tweaking various parameters to ffmpeg, agonizing over A/B
         | screencaps, only to inevitably be told you either missed some
         | minuscule detail in a single scene, or that your encode is
         | bloated.
        
         | AlotOfReading wrote:
         | You can see some ringing in the sky around the trees and on the
         | line between the crow's beak/feathers if you look closely.
         | (Alvin's?) fur goes much farther down his forehead as well.
         | People who work deeply with codecs are usually hypersensitive
         | to these sorts of issues that mere mortals like us need to try
         | to see.
         | 
         | There used to be a legendary blog called "Diaries of an x264
         | developer" by Fiona Glaser [0] where she'd go on long rants
         | about various ways to cheat in encoder comparisons [1], much
         | like this.
         | 
         | [0]
         | https://web.archive.org/web/2012/http://x264dev.multimedia.c...
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://web.archive.org/web/20130215095527/http://x264dev.mu...
        
           | machrider wrote:
           | Appreciate this, I was feeling the same way as the original
           | comment. It looks maybe over-sharpened, but I don't see
           | anything as glaring as the text of the article makes it
           | sound! (Of course, I'm not a video codec developer.)
           | 
           | It does remind me of how stereo & speaker manufacturers
           | sometimes boost treble a little bit (rather than being
           | perfectly "transparent" to the original signal) because it
           | gives the impression of clarity. But ideally each step in the
           | processing chain "colors" the signal as little as possible,
           | because those little differences can add up.
        
             | LegionMammal978 wrote:
             | Yeah, audio response curves have always been a bit
             | confusing to me. Like, they say that headphones should use
             | a Harman curve because that sounds 'best' to listeners, but
             | how valid is it as an objective measure? (E.g., will
             | listeners 50 years from now find a different curve
             | 'better', the same way that instrument tuning has changed
             | over centuries?) And how much of it is responding to
             | current practices in recording and mixing?
             | 
             | Of course, you won't get a sound as if you're in the same
             | room (without a very fancy setup), so you'll generally want
             | some sort of transformation to get an acceptable output.
             | And artists often want to aim for a certain effect on top
             | of that. But with how things currently are, many of the
             | decisions going into the final sound are very opaque.
        
           | crazygringo wrote:
           | I agree the "negative" artifacts are almost impossible to
           | see, and came here to the comments to see what the heck the
           | author was talking about.
           | 
           | > _People who work deeply with codecs are usually
           | hypersensitive to these sorts of issues that mere mortals
           | like us need to try to see._
           | 
           | I think that kind of shows that the author is unfairly
           | critical.
           | 
           | They're saying "this should not have shipped", when it seems
           | _just fine_ to us  "mere mortals".
           | 
           | Yes, video encoding requires using your eyes. But it also
           | seems like it should use normal eyes, not hypersensitive
           | eyes...?
        
         | dist-epoch wrote:
         | Ringing is pretty obvious to me. It has a specific meaning in
         | this context, it means edges are over-sharpened to the point
         | that "fake" extra edges appear.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_artifacts
        
         | SG- wrote:
         | the fact that it looks different is the problem.
        
         | mrob wrote:
         | The ringing is most obvious in the striped shirt in the
         | painting on the wall. It's added entire new stripes that don't
         | exist in the original.
        
       | mikeryan wrote:
       | Sorta related story.
       | 
       | I worked for a cable channel (TechTV) in the late 90s early 2ks
       | (until Comcast bought it, laid everyone off and turned it into
       | G4) this was the early days of cable VOD. At that time you had to
       | pay a service by the minute to watch your video before they'd
       | distribute it. That was the QA forced on you by the cable
       | companies.
       | 
       | The fun note is that those services charged double for "adult"
       | content.
        
       | xmprt wrote:
       | Is it just me or does the author here sound like they're hating
       | just to hate? The writing doesn't sound that terrible. Maybe it's
       | a bit amateur but isn't that what you're expect from an
       | engineering blog post written by people whose day job is to write
       | code. And for a layman, the image comparison isn't as bad as they
       | make it out to seem.
        
       | kelseyfrog wrote:
       | I'd imagine that for the group of people who can see the
       | difference, it must be very aggravating - much like when you
       | start to see kerning mistakes. For the rest of us, though, it is
       | imperceptible.
        
       | bonoboTP wrote:
       | Is downscaling difficult? I can understand that upscaling is hard
       | and you need learning. But when downscaling, for me OpenCV's
       | "area" interpolation always gives great results super fast.
        
         | Sesse__ wrote:
         | Is "area" just a box filter, which is what it sounds like? If
         | so, it gives really blurry results; hardly great.
        
       | henning wrote:
       | I love bagging on lazy engineers who just chuck code over the
       | fence without caring about the user experience, but I seriously
       | doubt I would notice this. The sad truth is a lot of video is
       | watched in the background and Netflix knows this. For the
       | specific case of a children's cartoon, I doubt the children
       | watching will notice or care.
       | 
       | If there _is_ user feedback about the quality, then by all means
       | listen to users and at least have an  "advanced settings" menu in
       | the app to let users toggle between encoders if they really care.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-01 23:00 UTC)