[FFmpeg-user] ffmpeg architecture question

[pdr0]

Carl Eugen Hoyos-2 wrote
> Am Sa., 18. Apr. 2020 um 19:27 Uhr schrieb pdr0 <

> pdr0@

> >:
>>
>> Carl Eugen Hoyos-2 wrote
>> > Am Sa., 18. Apr. 2020 um 00:53 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
>> > <
>>
>> > markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg@
>>
>> > >:
>> >
>> >> I'm not using the 46 telecine anymore because you introduced me to
>> >> 'pp=linblenddeint'
>> >> -- thanks again! -- which allowed me to decomb via the 55 telecine.
>> >
>> > Why do you think that pp is a better de-interlacer than yadif?
>> > (On hardware younger that's not more than ten years old.)
>>
>> It's not a question of "better" in his case.
>>
>> It's a very specific scenario - He needs to keep that combed frame, as a
>> single frame to retain the pattern.
> 
> I know, while I agree with all other developers that this is useless,
> I have explained how it can be done.

I dislike it too, but that's just an opinion . He's asking a technical
question - that deserves a technical answer


>> Single rate deinterlacing by any method
>> will cause you to choose either the top field or bottom field, resulting
>> in
>> a duplicate frame or the prior or next frame - and it's counterproductive
>> for what he wanted (blend deinterlacing to keep both fields as a single
>> frame)
> 
> (To the best of my knowledge, this is technically simply not true.)
> 
> yadif by default does not change the number of frames.
> (Or in other words: It works just like the pp algorithms, only better)

most deinterlacers have 2 modes, single and double rate. For example, yadif
has mode =0, or  mode =1 . eg. if you stared with a 29.97 interlaced source,
you will get 29.97p in single rate, 59.94p in double rate. Double rate is
more "proper" for interlaced content. Single rate discards half the temporal
information

In general, blend deinterlacing is terrible, the worst type of
deinterlacing, but he "needs" it for his specific scenario.  The "quality"
of yadif is quite low ,deinterlacing and aliasing artifacts. bwdif is
slightly better, and there are more complex deinterlacers not offered by
ffmpeg 





--
Sent from: http://www.ffmpeg-archive.org/