MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991711869 · doi:10.1117/12.452142

Survey of motion estimation techniques for video compression

2003· article· en· W1991711869 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Chriqui, Purnendu Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Coding and Compression Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion compensationComputer scienceData compressionVideo compression picture typesQuarter-pixel motionMotion estimationBlock-matching algorithmNTSCVideo processingVideo captureComputer visionMultimediaVideo trackingReal-time computingHigh-definition televisionComputer graphics (images)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of new, more powerful personal computers and workstations has ushered in a new era of computing. New machines are now capable of supporting full-motion video. The problem of video compression is a difficult and important one, and has inspired a great deal of research and development activity. A number of video compression techniques and standards have been introduced in the past few years, particularly MPEG for interactive multimedia and for digital NTSC and HDTV applications, and H.261/H.263 for video telecommunications. These techniques use motion estimation techniques to reduce the amount of data that is stored and transmitted for each frame of video. This paper is about these motion estimation techniques, their implementations, their complexity, advantages, and drawbacks. An overview of the MPEG video compression standard is first presented with an emphasis on how it utilizes motion compensation to achieve its high compression gains. Then a survey of current motion estimation techniques is presented, including the exhaustive search and a number of fast block-based search algorithms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicVideo Coding and Compression TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207