I just don't get why it's reinventing the whole wheel here – try using an off-the-shelf codec and tack on a sparse correction. For example, encode frames with a modern lossless/near-lossless codec (AV1 with QP=0) and then append a tiny bitmask+delta residual for perfect reconstruction. These codecs already exploit motion compensation, intra-prediction and DCT-like transforms to minimize frame-to-frame deltas.

In practice you’d likely get better compression (and faster progress) by piggybacking on AV1 strengths – then use Bloom-filter trick just on the leftover sparse differences – rather than building a new codec from scratch.

The residuals can be expected to be quite noisy and will likely not profit from any intra frame predictability anymore.

JPEG XL’s lossless engine already improves on PNG by ~35%, that and other general purpose compression methods would then be the per frame benchmark here on the residuals to beat.

In short: use the proven gear (motion-compensated blocks + modern transforms) to do the heavy lifitng, then let the bloom filter chase the hopefully comparably small residual.

As a showcase of what bloom filters are this would be still worthwhile, but I don't see any practical benefit here yet.

Not to forget, there is a reason visually lossless is the de facto the norm now, even in production grade environments, storage space is still not free while the average uncompressed display stream easily reaches way north of 5Gbps now easily, there is only so much lossless can resonably do here.