This is very impressive, but “perceptually lossless” isn’t a thing and doesn’t make sense. It means “lossy”.
It just means that a person can't readily distinguish between the compressed image and the uncompressed image. Usually because it takes some aspect(s) of the human visual system into account.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=per...
As an example, crf=18 in libx264 is considered “perceptually lossless” for most video content.
Does the compression algorithm work well for transparency? Yes, it's effect on transparency is totally transparent! In fact the transparency is fully transparently compressed by our codec.
Yeah, don't do this please. Perceptually lossless is a term I've heard lots of times before and companies developing codecs usually have a fairly strong technical basis for making the claim. As in, it's not like they just glance at the results and say "yep, looks good to me". Rather, they'll be looking and spectral curves and image diffs - probably also motion diffs for videos - and checking whether they the losses are small enough to be undetectable to human eyes.
for the record, I found liveportrait to be well within the uncanny valley. it looks great for ai generated avatars, but the difference is very perceptually noticeable on familiar faces. still it's great.
There is "Is identical", "looks identical" and "has lost sufficient detail to clearly not be the original." - being able to differentiate between these three states is useful.
The other two are variations of lossy.
Calling one of them "perceptually lossless" is cheating, to the disadvantage of algorithms that honestly advertise themselves as lossy while still achieving "looks identical" compression.
It's also used in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on the term "transparency" as it relates to data compression.
"no perceived loss" is a perfectly internally consistent and sensible concept and is actually orthogonal to whether it's actually lossless or lossy.
For instance an actually lossless block of data could be perceptually lossy if displayed the wrong way.
In fact, even actual lossless data is always actually lossy, and only ever "perceptually lossless", and there is no such thing as actually lossless, because anything digital is always only a lossy approximation of anything analog. There is loss both at the ADC and at the DAC stage.
If you want to criticize a term for being nonsense misleading dishonest bullshit, then I guess "lossless" is that term, since it never existed and never can exist.
In that scenario it certainly would not be `transparent` ie visually without any lossy artifacts. But your perception of it would look lossless.
The future is going to be weird.
"As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding." -Sloman and Fernbach
Are you sure? After all, you can effectively summarize meetings in a plain text which is extremely restricted in comparison to the original input. Guaranteed, exact manner of speech and motions and all subtleties should be also included to be fair, but that information is still far limited to fill the 20 kbps bandwidth.
We need far more bandwidth only because we don't yet have an efficient way to reconstruct the input faithfully from such highly condensed information. Whenever we actually could, we ended up having a very efficient lossy algorithm that still preserves enough information for us human. Unless you are strictly talking about the lossless compression---which is however very irrelevant in this particular topic---, we should expect much more compression in the future even though that might not be feasible today.
No doubt encoders and the codecs themselves have improved vastly since then. It would be interesting to see if I could tell the difference in a double-blind test today.
That being said, 320Kbps AAC encoded by Core Audio I’ve found to be pretty much transparent with anything I’ve thrown at it. Anything less than that (256Kbps AAC, 320Kbps MP3, etc) I can ABX sometimes, as long as I’m familiar with the source material, and usually only with quality headphones. Although no streaming services provide that, so I’m stuck with ALAC through Apple Music for streaming (which is more convenient than my old solution, which was transcoding and transferring to an iPod ~20k songs selected from ~90k in my library based on a variety of rules than never gave me the song I’m looking for). And really, ~900Kbps lossless is pretty easy to justify these days with 5G data speeds and generally much higher data transfer limits.
The other downside to storing losing encodings these days is the fact that almost everyone uses Bluetooth for their listening, which is an additional lossy encoding. While 256Kbps AAC/320Kbps MP3 might be transparent in some cases, when it’s re-encoded it very rarely is (in my experience)
I always intend to figure out how that works, because i don't feel a lot of audiophiles are actually speaking truth in many cases lol. Still, i don't know - i can't remember my sources to figure it out for myself :/
It's easy enough to specify an average person looking very closely, or a 99th percentile person, or something like that, and show the statistics backing it up.