kadu
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 0 Posts
Glad to see you recognize you were completely wrong and had to shift the conversation to a different topic.
You’re way too rude for somebody this unaware of the topic at hand.
FSR and DLSS are at their core temporal upscalers. They take motion vectors, subpixel samples from jittering objects, and a low resolution scene, and using shaders for FSR or AI models for DLSS, interpolate the existing pixels to fill the entire target resolution. That’s it. This is not frame generation, and they don’t use anything, whatever you meant by that.
You can then, on top of the regular upscaling, enable frame generation to enable an entirely different path that holds frames in the buffer and creates intermediary frames. Those are the fake frames you complained about.
One can use both FSR and DLSS without no frame generation whatsoever, and both were originally created without any type of frame generation to begin with. At the present, Helldivers already uses FSR without frame generation - just for upscaling - but it’s FSR, a matrix based spatial scalar that only looks at one central pixel and tries to apply weights to determine how to fill in the neighbors. This looks horrendous. FSR 2.x and onwards, and DLSS, use the full temporal mechanism I described.
That’s “what the heck” I think DLSS does.
Author(s): Digit (Directing Claude Sonnet 4.0, Mistral, Qwen, opencode (grok), and more)
Oooof
You’re really willing to die on the hill of poop camera subscriptions, I’m not willing to waste time diving further into the subject. You’re ignorant of the topic, which is fine, but I won’t be the one explaining further.
Because it’s an incredibly unreliable data point by itself, and requires significantly more than visual analysis to prevent several co-variables.
Yes and you don’t have to hire a plumber to fix your sink if you’re a plumber.
You are severely misunderstanding the point being made. Imagine you have a leaky pipe, you hire a professional plumber, they charge you $500 and say “yep, I can take a look and I conclude it’s a leaky pipe!”
What I’m precisely telling you is that this company can’t provide the professional analysis you just commented.
You’re telling me there’s zero valuable information in photos of feces?
Nope. I’m saying a private company and whatever training set they have, plus a cheap RGB camera and an AI model, is not going to give you any information that you can’t derive by simply looking at the feces yourself, much like the table you just linked. Though that table itself is an oversimplification that, being unable to take other parameters into account, also contains potentially misleading conclusions.
My field is bioinformatics. I’m willing to bet $500 there’s little to no valuable data being gathered at all, and quite a lot of noise, rather than anything relevant for your health. I’m sure, just like your smart watch, they can make it sound like some deep insights and health exploration, but I guarantee you it’s not.