|
|
|
|
|
by cafebeen
4005 days ago
|
|
I agree that it's nice to have this kind of write up and code, but "works" is a low bar to pass, especially in image compression. If this were written up as an academic paper, a few questions would have to be answered: * what is the related work? * can you put any bound on the error of the reconstruction? * how does performance vary across resolution, noise, and content? * how does that compare to the other state-of-the-art methods? Without that, how do we know whether this is worth using? |
|