[crazygringo]

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...?

[HPsquared]

Also video is viewed in motion, not as static frames. And end-users watching on low bitrates aren't going to freeze-frame and zoom in.

[bestham]

That is true. But why would you replace a simple known to be working filter with this thing that yields worse performance? There are no upsides to this, and that is why the domain expert is baffled. We have been making filters like this for a long time, it is known how they should be evaluated and yet this thing is still touted as state of the art but its creators. If the image quality is lower with this filter and you say that is does not matter then the quality of the stream is to high. This filter is not going to solve that.

[HPsquared]

It apparently did better with users' subjective evaluations. I guess they liked the "extra detail" look, even if it's fake. End users aren't zooming in to freeze frames or, heaven forbid, taking screenshots (think of the copyright!!)

[soulofmischief]

End users aren't domain experts. That's like if I was allowed on the factory floor where my favorite products are made so that I could make subjective, uninformed decisions about the manufacturing process which also affect everyone else.

[trehalose]

Is it? Or is it like if you were allowed into a focus group where they let you try out two manufactured products, so that you could make subjective, uninformed decisions about the product lineup which also affect everyone else?

[soulofmischief]

Laundering manufactured consent for cheaper, inferior products as consumer choice is a pretty old trick.

A consumer's perceived preference can be modulated by any number of issues with which the consumer is not properly informed, such as preferring one sweetener over the other, even if there are valid health concerns, thanks to generational brainwashing and an intentional lack of consumer training. What we have today is the consumer market equivalent to the unsophisticated investor market. People getting economically exploited and feeling like it was their own idea.

In the case of video encoders... Actual domain experts should not be forced to cede to the whim of an untrained eye simply for the purpose of capitalists extracting more money from them.

It's one thing for Netflix to experiment with the latest advances in machine learning, as a lot of us do. But when the opening sentence is to their blog is "When you are binge-watching the latest season of Stranger Things or Ozark, we strive to deliver the best possible video quality to your eyes", it's hard not to find issue with A) the commodification of entertainment and patronizing consumer speak and B) a misleading preposition about commitment to quality which the cited response article makes clear is untrue in the case of this product.

Deferring to domain experts in this case is better for every consumer, as they will not be duped into exchanging an increasingly degraded experience in exchange for increasing monthly rates. People feel very strongly about film quality, and for good reason. We're talking about the preservation of art and culture, but Netflix doesn't see it this way, as to them, it's all a commodity, and they manufacture consent for commodification. If the average user can't see this and push back against the degradation of quality that comes with commodification of art, I have a hard time deferring to them over an actual expert.

[AlotOfReading]

Yeah, but there are classical algorithms with tunable sharpening that are cheaper and widely known (e.g. catmull-rom or the "magic" kernel sharp algorithm by John Costella).

My suspicion is that none of this mattered though, because the evaluation was probably "perceptual equivalence" vs bitrate. I can easily believe it might be a marginal win over traditional algorithms from that perspective.

[trashtensor]

It does strike me that video encoding blog posts that show up here are often these kinda toxic rants that seemingly exaggerate whatever it is they're ranting about and also assume the people working on these things are complete morons for missing whatever minute detail the author is angry about.