> I only skimmed the article, but I don't think they mention the size of the image. 100ms is not that impressive when you consider that you need to be three times as fast for acceptable video frame rate.
You don't need three times as fast for acceptable video frame rates in a video editor, you need a system that allows you to cache "rendered" frames so when the user does an edit, it renders to this cache, then once done, the user can play it back in real-time.
This is essentially how all video editors handle edits on clips/video today. Some effects/edits can be applied in real-time, but the more advanced one (I'd say background removal being one of them) works with this type of caching system.
You don't need three times as fast for acceptable video frame rates in a video editor, you need a system that allows you to cache "rendered" frames so when the user does an edit, it renders to this cache, then once done, the user can play it back in real-time.
This is essentially how all video editors handle edits on clips/video today. Some effects/edits can be applied in real-time, but the more advanced one (I'd say background removal being one of them) works with this type of caching system.