[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Clarifying the use of the scale filter interlace option

Tim Nicholson nichot20 at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 2 09:56:43 CEST 2012

On 31/03/12 12:54, Mark Himsley wrote:
> On 29/03/2012 20:33, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:49:38AM +0100, Tim Nicholson wrote:
>>> Also unlike other cases -1 (auto) is not the default.
>> this could be changed if it works better overall
> I made this point on 25/07/2011, with a patch. It was rejected because
> the progressive videos used in fate tests were always flagged as
> progressive in DV codecs so PSNR tests failed horribly.

Did you mean "flagged as interlaced". Progressive marked as progressive
is surely correct.

> It is my opinion that the fate tests should be changed, as the benefits
> of -1 (auto) are huge.

Quite, see my other thread.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list