Nah I don't think an inch should be given here. Everyone knows how these companies think. As soon as its' deemed acceptable to marry any bitrate with any pixel clock/bit depth then we'll see a race to the bottom of visual fidelity and latency. Things are good when the display interconnect does what it's supposed to. If it can't: then live with the lower resolution/bit depth until an interconnect comes along that meets bitrate requirements.
I don't foresee this race to the bottom that you're predicting. So manufacturers are going to make their displays have worse and worse fidelity because there isn't some all-powerful oversight board that demands pure lossless performance in all perceptible mediums? And what would manufacturers incentive be to make their displays worse, and then even worse still? All at a time when consumer perception of what makes up a quality display experience is at an all-time high? I'm struggling to find the compelling business case where manufacturers would be driven to reduce fidelity to perceptible levels.
Visually lossless implies someone's (population analog) visual acuity. Is the assumption here some 18 years old with 20/20? or 40 years old with 15/20 vision? at what viewing distance and at what display size?
Considering the US population median age is 38 years old and roughly this is where they would start having near vision difficulties, I find this claim misleading, or ambiguous at best.
Some alternative, which is less desirable/marketable: 3:1 CR or 5:1 CR, instead of the 'visually' moniker will be much more precise.
Example of other's failed claims: Luminosity could help prevent Dementia: $2 million FTC fine. Extenze had claimed its enlarging prowess: $6 million class action lawsuit.
Samsung GS5 "removable battery is good, get 100% charge on a whim in seconds, easy peazy"
FFW 2018 pretty much any vendor In order to give you "premium feeling" (useless aluminum body, no different to a high quality plastic on a device that they will make you die in 3 years), water proof, blablabla we had to solder the battery.
No matter how much you pamper your smartphone, once the sealed the battery dies or get's crippled in battery life, your device will be a brick.
Years before mobile devices would have a DC input so you don't have to touch the battery when at home (bed, sofa) for example.
That was exactly my thought. Well, you probably can't tell difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac on $19.99 speakers, but it's hell of a difference when you play it on a quality sound system for $3k (example). It's probably very hard to notice on tiny mobile device screen though, but hard to tell until seen.
Briefly, they break the image into 8 pixel wide, 2 line long blocks. Prediction is used to losslessly code the blocks, and if necessary, the discrete cosine transform is used to apply JPEG-like quantization to the residuals to hit a bitrate target.
This really isn't magic. For normal content like a computer UI, lossless prediction will probably hit the bitrate target with plenty to spare. For images, the residuals will be JPEG compressed above some point, which is again fairly easy to do (typical JPEG compression is >10:1), so 3:1 is not exactly pushing it, while the small block size (16 instead of 256 in JPEG) means very low complexity.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
17 Comments
Back to Article
Nozuka - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
"visually lossless"It either is lossless or not... visually lossless sounds like a scam
A5 - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
The term makes sense...there's a gap between two images being mathematically identical and (most) people being able to perceive a difference.edzieba - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Bingo. SSIM and PSNR provide nice "mine's bigger" numbers, but don't often correlate all that well with perceptual image quality.willis936 - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Nah I don't think an inch should be given here. Everyone knows how these companies think. As soon as its' deemed acceptable to marry any bitrate with any pixel clock/bit depth then we'll see a race to the bottom of visual fidelity and latency. Things are good when the display interconnect does what it's supposed to. If it can't: then live with the lower resolution/bit depth until an interconnect comes along that meets bitrate requirements.Moizy - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
I don't foresee this race to the bottom that you're predicting. So manufacturers are going to make their displays have worse and worse fidelity because there isn't some all-powerful oversight board that demands pure lossless performance in all perceptible mediums? And what would manufacturers incentive be to make their displays worse, and then even worse still? All at a time when consumer perception of what makes up a quality display experience is at an all-time high? I'm struggling to find the compelling business case where manufacturers would be driven to reduce fidelity to perceptible levels.PEJUman - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Visually lossless implies someone's (population analog) visual acuity. Is the assumption here some 18 years old with 20/20? or 40 years old with 15/20 vision? at what viewing distance and at what display size?Considering the US population median age is 38 years old and roughly this is where they would start having near vision difficulties, I find this claim misleading, or ambiguous at best.
Some alternative, which is less desirable/marketable:
3:1 CR or 5:1 CR, instead of the 'visually' moniker will be much more precise.
Example of other's failed claims:
Luminosity could help prevent Dementia: $2 million FTC fine.
Extenze had claimed its enlarging prowess: $6 million class action lawsuit.
Lolimaster - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Maybe check the removable battery thing.Samsung GS5 "removable battery is good, get 100% charge on a whim in seconds, easy peazy"
FFW 2018 pretty much any vendor
In order to give you "premium feeling" (useless aluminum body, no different to a high quality plastic on a device that they will make you die in 3 years), water proof, blablabla we had to solder the battery.
No matter how much you pamper your smartphone, once the sealed the battery dies or get's crippled in battery life, your device will be a brick.
Years before mobile devices would have a DC input so you don't have to touch the battery when at home (bed, sofa) for example.
GhostOfAnand - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
"Visually lossless" *is* a scam!iwod - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Exactly, that is like selling you 320Kbps MP3 as Audibly Lossless.HollyDOL - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link
That was exactly my thought. Well, you probably can't tell difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac on $19.99 speakers, but it's hell of a difference when you play it on a quality sound system for $3k (example).It's probably very hard to notice on tiny mobile device screen though, but hard to tell until seen.
brunis.dk - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link
Yeah, JPEG is visually lossless too, if you turn up the quality slider enough. But not really lossless at all.Elstar - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
A "visually lossless" ratio of "3:1" with "low" IC complexity sounds like magic.Does anybody have a link to articles explaining how DSC works?
saratoga4 - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Overview of algorithm here: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proc...Briefly, they break the image into 8 pixel wide, 2 line long blocks. Prediction is used to losslessly code the blocks, and if necessary, the discrete cosine transform is used to apply JPEG-like quantization to the residuals to hit a bitrate target.
This really isn't magic. For normal content like a computer UI, lossless prediction will probably hit the bitrate target with plenty to spare. For images, the residuals will be JPEG compressed above some point, which is again fairly easy to do (typical JPEG compression is >10:1), so 3:1 is not exactly pushing it, while the small block size (16 instead of 256 in JPEG) means very low complexity.
baka_toroi - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
So what cellphones nowadays include mini Displayport or something alike?DanNeely - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
The embedded version is primarily for the link between the SoC and and the phone/tablet/laptop's screen.Kevin G - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link
USB-C often includes the DisplayPort alt-mode.madwolfa - Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - link
Because how would you cram 16K resolution into a 5" screen otherwise? /s