The big difference is that if you are recreating an entire image and there isn't going to be any difference information against a reference image you can't move pixels around, you have to get fractional values out of optical flow and move pixels fractional amounts that potentially overlap in some areas and leave gaps in others.

This means rasterization and making a weighted average of moved pixels as points with a kernel with width and height.

Optical flow isn't one technique, it's just a name for getting motion vectors in the first place.

Here is a lecture to help clear it up.

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall19/cos429/s...

I've started this thread by explaining this very problem, so I don't get why you're trying to lecture me on subpel motion and disocclusion.

What's your point? Your replies seem to be just broadly contrarian and patronizing.

I've continued this discussion assuming that maybe we talk past each other by using the term "motion vectors" in narrower and broader meanings, or maybe you did not believe that the motion vectors that game engines have can be incredibly useful for video encoding.

However, you haven't really communicated your point across. I only see that whenever I describe something in a simplified way, you jump to correct me, while failing to realize that I'm intentionally simplifying for brevity and to avoid unnecessary jargon.