Our early Tarkin codec tried this strategy-- it encoded entire blocks of frames, the equivalent of a GOP, en-masse. The problem is that one must quantize to get effective compression in video, and transforms with decent compaction are acausal. As a result, motion artifacts show up before the motion begins, and the slightest hint of pre-motion artifacts stands out like a sore thumb. When we ratcheted the precision high enough to avoid the problem, there was no longer any benefit to encoding the entire block at once (but a number of remaining disadvantages).
Motion compensation via 3D transform is likely kind of doomed. Frames are relatively speaking 'far apart' temporally and the motion changes between them aren't very smooth. Not much useful redundancy just falls out as a result of handling the block of frames all at once, and then you have to buffer multiple hundreds of megabytes of frame data, gigabytes for HD. Someday that much memory will be free, but by then, we'll likely be up to super-mega-128k+-UHD video and we'll need orders of magnitudes more.
Re: What about thinking outside the box of I-/B-/P-Frames?
Date: 2014-12-25 09:01 pm (UTC)Motion compensation via 3D transform is likely kind of doomed. Frames are relatively speaking 'far apart' temporally and the motion changes between them aren't very smooth. Not much useful redundancy just falls out as a result of handling the block of frames all at once, and then you have to buffer multiple hundreds of megabytes of frame data, gigabytes for HD. Someday that much memory will be free, but by then, we'll likely be up to super-mega-128k+-UHD video and we'll need orders of magnitudes more.