Masking is fast — more or less real-time, maybe even a bit faster.
However, infill is not real-time. It runs at about 0.8 FPS on a 3090 GTX at 860p (which is the default resolution of the underlying networks).
There are much faster models out there, but none that match the visual quality and can run on a consumer GPU as of now. The use case for VideoVanish is more geared towards professional or hobby video editing — e.g., you filmed a scene for a video or movie and don’t want to spend two days doing manual in painting.
VideoVanish does have an option to run the infill at a lower resolution. Where it fills only the infilled areas using the low-resolution output — that way you can trade visual fidelity for speed. Depending on what’s behind the patches, this can be a very viable approach.
Masking is fast — more or less real-time, maybe even a bit faster.
However, infill is not real-time. It runs at about 0.8 FPS on a 3090 GTX at 860p (which is the default resolution of the underlying networks).
There are much faster models out there, but none that match the visual quality and can run on a consumer GPU as of now. The use case for VideoVanish is more geared towards professional or hobby video editing — e.g., you filmed a scene for a video or movie and don’t want to spend two days doing manual in painting.
VideoVanish does have an option to run the infill at a lower resolution. Where it fills only the infilled areas using the low-resolution output — that way you can trade visual fidelity for speed. Depending on what’s behind the patches, this can be a very viable approach.