Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)
Hi All,

'yadif=mode=send_field' is one way to convert fields to frames at the same frame size and twice the
FR. It does it by repeating fields, but it also adds cosmetics -- it is, after all, a motion
interpolation filter.

I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my pursuit, I look for such a
filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to find such a filter.

Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?

Thanks!

--
In U.S. History: The House Un-American Activities Committee was a committee of the House of
Representatives that engaged in un-American activities.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Paul B Mahol
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:17 AM Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> 'yadif=mode=send_field' is one way to convert fields to frames at the same
> frame size and twice the
> FR. It does it by repeating fields, but it also adds cosmetics -- it is,
> after all, a motion
> interpolation filter.
>
> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
> pursuit, I look for such a
> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to find
> such a filter.
>
> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
>

Please define cosmetics.


>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> In U.S. History: The House Un-American Activities Committee was a
> committee of the House of
> Representatives that engaged in un-American activities.
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

pdr0
In reply to this post by Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)
Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote

> 'yadif=mode=send_field' is one way to convert fields to frames at the same
> frame size and twice the
> FR. It does it by repeating fields, but it also adds cosmetics -- it is,
> after all, a motion
> interpolation filter.
>
> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
> pursuit, I look for such a
> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to find
> such a filter.
>
> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?

Yadif is not a motion interpolation filter

Motion interpolation implies resampling new data points in time - such as
optical flow (e.g. minterpolate or svpflow) when new "in-between" frames are
inserted using motion vectors. In contrast, yadif's interpolation is 1)
spatial, not temporal, and  2) Existing fields are not resampled in time
when converted to frames. ie. The motion characteristics are the same as the
input. eg. 59.94 samples/s interlaced source still has 59.94 same samples/s
progressive in the output, not some other retimed number . Or 23.976 samples
in 3:2 pulldown, still has 23.976 samples progressive in the output with
triplicates and duplicates. It's the same motion characteristics at the same
temporal positions - there is no "interpolation" of motion.

It sounds like you want a bob filter with simple spatial interpolation, such
as line doubling for the spatial interpolation (e.g.  nearest neighbor) ?
When you have missing scan lines, there is always some "cosmetics" . You
can't get something from nothing. Some type of spatial interpolation +/-
temporal interpolation (using data from adjacent fields) is always involved
to fill in the missing scan lines. Clarify how you want this to be done.

Or, did you want field matching with decimation instead ?  eg. reconstruct
the original progressive frames that were organized in fields with pulldown
pattern , and decimating the duplicates. AKA "inverse telecine" ?

What kind of "fields to frames" did you want ?





--
Sent from: http://ffmpeg-users.933282.n4.nabble.com/
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

James Darnley
In reply to this post by Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)
On 05/03/2021, Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my pursuit,
> I look for such a
> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to find
> such a filter.
>
> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?

separatefields - "splits each frame into its components fields,
producing a new half height clip with twice the frame rate and twice
the frame count"
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)
In reply to this post by pdr0
On 2021-03-05 10:35, pdr0 wrote:

> Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
>> 'yadif=mode=send_field' is one way to convert fields to frames at the same
>> frame size and twice the
>> FR. It does it by repeating fields, but it also adds cosmetics -- it is,
>> after all, a motion
>> interpolation filter.
>>
>> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
>> pursuit, I look for such a
>> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to find
>> such a filter.
>>
>> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
>
> Yadif is not a motion interpolation filter

Okay, not motion interpolation. My bad. I remember "motion adaptive" being used to describe what
yadif does. And there's this: http://avisynth.nl/index.php/Yadif
"...by Michael Niedermayer. It check pixels of previous, current and next frames to re-create the
missed field by some local adaptive method (edge-directed interpolation) and uses spatial check to
prevent most artifacts."

I need line doubling that, as its bottom field, simply duplicates the top field.

[A+b] ==> [A+A]   ...if a [b+b] frame is also produced, I'll throw it away.

I know of several ways to do it with a series of filters but they take extra time. A simple,
dedicated line double would be fast and just what I need.

The filter will be applied to a single frame that's isolated via modulo selection.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Paul B Mahol
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:13 PM Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 2021-03-05 10:35, pdr0 wrote:
> > Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
> >> 'yadif=mode=send_field' is one way to convert fields to frames at the
> same
> >> frame size and twice the
> >> FR. It does it by repeating fields, but it also adds cosmetics -- it is,
> >> after all, a motion
> >> interpolation filter.
> >>
> >> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
> >> pursuit, I look for such a
> >> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to
> find
> >> such a filter.
> >>
> >> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
> >
> > Yadif is not a motion interpolation filter
>
> Okay, not motion interpolation. My bad. I remember "motion adaptive" being
> used to describe what
> yadif does. And there's this: http://avisynth.nl/index.php/Yadif
> "...by Michael Niedermayer. It check pixels of previous, current and next
> frames to re-create the
> missed field by some local adaptive method (edge-directed interpolation)
> and uses spatial check to
> prevent most artifacts."
>
> I need line doubling that, as its bottom field, simply duplicates the top
> field.
>
> [A+b] ==> [A+A]   ...if a [b+b] frame is also produced, I'll throw it away.
>
> I know of several ways to do it with a series of filters but they take
> extra time. A simple,
> dedicated line double would be fast and just what I need.
>

No, stop trolling. There is not extra time taken whatsoever.

Please go troll elsewhere.


>
> The filter will be applied to a single frame that's isolated via modulo
> selection.
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)
In reply to this post by James Darnley
On 2021-03-05 11:13, James Darnley wrote:

> On 05/03/2021, Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my pursuit,
>> I look for such a
>> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to find
>> such a filter.
>>
>> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
>
> separatefields - "splits each frame into its components fields,
> producing a new half height clip with twice the frame rate and twice
> the frame count"

Yes, I could do (and have done) that, followed by 'shuffleframes=00', followed by 'tinterlace' [1].
But that seems like a lengthy (slow) way to do what should be a simple (faster) thing [2].

[1] [A+b] ==> [A][b] ==> [A][A] ==> [A+A]
[2] [A+b] ==> [A+A]


If you're curious about what I'm doing, look:
[A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE is a (consistent) mess [3]
[A+A][a+a][B+B][c+c][C+C][d+d][D+D][d+d][D+D][d+d]   ...yadif=mode=send_field
[A+A][a+a][B+B][B+B][C+C][c+c][D+D][d+d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
[A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...tinterlace=mode=interleave_bottom to make TARGET [4]

[3] Telecined (=30fps) ==> frame 1 discard (=24fps) ==> frame 3 repeat (=30fps).
[4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).


[A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE
[A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d]   ...separatefields
[A][a][B][B][C][c][D][d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
[A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...weave=first_field=top to make TARGET

Hmmm... That appears to work. I'll try it.

I guess I got stuck on using tinterlace as the last step and couldn't see that separatefields &
weave would be simpler (and faster) than yadif and without yadif's cosmetics.

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

pdr0
Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
> On 2021-03-05 11:13, James Darnley wrote:
>> On 05/03/2021, Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) &lt;

> markfilipak@

> &gt; wrote:
>>> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
>>> pursuit,
>>> I look for such a
>>> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to
>>> find
>>> such a filter.
>>>
>>> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
>>
>> separatefields - "splits each frame into its components fields,
>> producing a new half height clip with twice the frame rate and twice
>> the frame count"
>
> Yes, I could do (and have done) that, followed by 'shuffleframes=00',
> followed by 'tinterlace' [1].
> But that seems like a lengthy (slow) way to do what should be a simple
> (faster) thing [2].
>
> [1] [A+b] ==> [A][b] ==> [A][A] ==> [A+A]
> [2] [A+b] ==> [A+A]
>
>
> If you're curious about what I'm doing, look:
> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE is a (consistent) mess [3]
> [A+A][a+a][B+B][c+c][C+C][d+d][D+D][d+d][D+D][d+d]  
> ...yadif=mode=send_field
> [A+A][a+a][B+B][B+B][C+C][c+c][D+D][d+d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6
> 7 -1 -1
> [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...tinterlace=mode=interleave_bottom to make TARGET
> [4]
>
> [3] Telecined (=30fps) ==> frame 1 discard (=24fps) ==> frame 3 repeat
> (=30fps).
> [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).
>
>
> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE
> [A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d]   ...separatefields
> [A][a][B][B][C][c][D][d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
> [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...weave=first_field=top to make TARGET
>
> Hmmm... That appears to work. I'll try it.
>
> I guess I got stuck on using tinterlace as the last step and couldn't see
> that separatefields &
> weave would be simpler (and faster) than yadif and without yadif's
> cosmetics.
>
> Thanks!


Yes, yadif is not the right filter for what you're doing, because of the
spatial interpolation. Yadif is a deinterlacer, and as a general rule you
don't deinterlace progressive content (that has matching field pairs), or
you'll degrade it


Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
> [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).

Cosmetic filter is wanted and possible on B+B.

B is an orphaned field, missing it's partner "b" . B+B is going to be full
of aliasing/stairstepping. The field interpolation algorithm used to
generate the pseudo "b" makes a difference. For example, -vf nnedi=field=t
applied selectively on that B+B frame will look substantially better, almost
like a fake B+b . Or temporally filtered B+b (from A+a and C+c data), such
as with QTGMC in vapoursynth or avisynth will look better than either. If
you want demos or more info let me know













--
Sent from: http://ffmpeg-users.933282.n4.nabble.com/
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Mark Filipak (ffmpeg)
On 2021-03-05 21:31, pdr0 wrote:

> Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
>> On 2021-03-05 11:13, James Darnley wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2021, Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote:
>>>> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
>>>> pursuit,
>>>> I look for such a
>>>> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to
>>>> find
>>>> such a filter.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
>>>
>>> separatefields - "splits each frame into its components fields,
>>> producing a new half height clip with twice the frame rate and twice
>>> the frame count"
>>
>> Yes, I could do (and have done) that, followed by 'shuffleframes=00',
>> followed by 'tinterlace' [1].
>> But that seems like a lengthy (slow) way to do what should be a simple
>> (faster) thing [2].
>>
>> [1] [A+b] ==> [A][b] ==> [A][A] ==> [A+A]
>> [2] [A+b] ==> [A+A]
>>
>>
>> If you're curious about what I'm doing, look:
>> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE is a (consistent) mess [3]
>> [A+A][a+a][B+B][c+c][C+C][d+d][D+D][d+d][D+D][d+d]
>> ...yadif=mode=send_field
>> [A+A][a+a][B+B][B+B][C+C][c+c][D+D][d+d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6
>> 7 -1 -1
>> [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...tinterlace=mode=interleave_bottom to make TARGET
>> [4]
>>
>> [3] Telecined (=30fps) ==> frame 1 discard (=24fps) ==> frame 3 repeat
>> (=30fps).
>> [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).
>>
>>
>> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE
>> [A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d]   ...separatefields
>> [A][a][B][B][C][c][D][d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
>> [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...weave=first_field=top to make TARGET
>>
>> Hmmm... That appears to work. I'll try it.
>>
>> I guess I got stuck on using tinterlace as the last step and couldn't see
>> that separatefields &
>> weave would be simpler (and faster) than yadif and without yadif's
>> cosmetics.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>
> Yes, yadif is not the right filter for what you're doing, because of the
> spatial interpolation. Yadif is a deinterlacer, and as a general rule you
> don't deinterlace progressive content (that has matching field pairs), or
> you'll degrade it

I think it would be helpful if I clarified. I've got 2 balls in the air. 1, go with what I outline
above (specifically [B+B]), or 2, allow [c] to mate with [B] (in addition to mating with [C]) and
apply yadif to just the [B+c] frame, thusly:

[A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE
[A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d]   ...separatefields
[A][a][B][c][C][c][D][d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
[A+a][B+c][C+c][D+d]   ...yadif(frame n%4==1 only),weave=first_field=top

The video is an actor making a comment. Her name fades in-out, below and to the right.

The more I look at the bob of that text in the [B+B] frame (otherwise the bob is not noticeable),
the more I'm leaning towards some sort of cosmetics even if it introduces a very, very slight judder
(i.e. c][C+c] is effectively 1+1/2 frames).

In my first tries (a couple of days ago), I applied yadif to all frames and didn't like the results.
I hate fuzzy and I hate judder even more, but now I'm considering both for what is effectively +1/2
frame.

> Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
>> [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).
>
> Cosmetic filter is wanted and possible on B+B.
>
> B is an orphaned field, missing it's partner "b" . B+B is going to be full
> of aliasing/stairstepping...

Since it's for only 1/24th second, aliasing & bob really are not noticeable (except for the
aforementioned text). (BTW, the ffmpeg docs have only 3 references to the word 'alias'. All 3 are in
'8.6 acrusher'. Are the devs avoiding the word 'alias' for a reason?)

>... The field interpolation algorithm used to
> generate the pseudo "b" makes a difference. For example, -vf nnedi=field=t
> applied selectively on that B+B frame will look substantially better, almost
> like a fake B+b . Or temporally filtered B+b (from A+a and C+c data), such
> as with QTGMC in vapoursynth or avisynth will look better than either. If
> you want demos or more info let me know

Thanks for the offer. You're very generous. I'll try hard to not burden you.

I experimented with 'nnedi' a couple of months ago and will retrieve my notes. And I do pipe to/from
VapourSynth for other tasks (mostly to use InterFrame) so I'm somewhat familiar with it. I'll try
both your suggestions (and I'll try to not be too stupid).

You've given me a good push. Thanks so much for the guidance!
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wanted: Fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics

Paul B Mahol
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 7:11 AM Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 2021-03-05 21:31, pdr0 wrote:
> > Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
> >> On 2021-03-05 11:13, James Darnley wrote:
> >>> On 05/03/2021, Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote:
> >>>> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my
> >>>> pursuit,
> >>>> I look for such a
> >>>> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to
> >>>> find
> >>>> such a filter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics?
> >>>
> >>> separatefields - "splits each frame into its components fields,
> >>> producing a new half height clip with twice the frame rate and twice
> >>> the frame count"
> >>
> >> Yes, I could do (and have done) that, followed by 'shuffleframes=00',
> >> followed by 'tinterlace' [1].
> >> But that seems like a lengthy (slow) way to do what should be a simple
> >> (faster) thing [2].
> >>
> >> [1] [A+b] ==> [A][b] ==> [A][A] ==> [A+A]
> >> [2] [A+b] ==> [A+A]
> >>
> >>
> >> If you're curious about what I'm doing, look:
> >> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE is a (consistent) mess [3]
> >> [A+A][a+a][B+B][c+c][C+C][d+d][D+D][d+d][D+D][d+d]
> >> ...yadif=mode=send_field
> >> [A+A][a+a][B+B][B+B][C+C][c+c][D+D][d+d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3
> 6
> >> 7 -1 -1
> >> [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...tinterlace=mode=interleave_bottom to make
> TARGET
> >> [4]
> >>
> >> [3] Telecined (=30fps) ==> frame 1 discard (=24fps) ==> frame 3 repeat
> >> (=30fps).
> >> [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).
> >>
> >>
> >> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE
> >> [A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d]   ...separatefields
> >> [A][a][B][B][C][c][D][d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
> >> [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d]   ...weave=first_field=top to make TARGET
> >>
> >> Hmmm... That appears to work. I'll try it.
> >>
> >> I guess I got stuck on using tinterlace as the last step and couldn't
> see
> >> that separatefields &
> >> weave would be simpler (and faster) than yadif and without yadif's
> >> cosmetics.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Yes, yadif is not the right filter for what you're doing, because of the
> > spatial interpolation. Yadif is a deinterlacer, and as a general rule you
> > don't deinterlace progressive content (that has matching field pairs), or
> > you'll degrade it
>
> I think it would be helpful if I clarified. I've got 2 balls in the air.
> 1, go with what I outline
> above (specifically [B+B]), or 2, allow [c] to mate with [B] (in addition
> to mating with [C]) and
> apply yadif to just the [B+c] frame, thusly:
>
> [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d]   ...SOURCE
> [A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d]   ...separatefields
> [A][a][B][c][C][c][D][d]   ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 -1 -1
> [A+a][B+c][C+c][D+d]   ...yadif(frame n%4==1 only),weave=first_field=top
>
> The video is an actor making a comment. Her name fades in-out, below and
> to the right.
>
> The more I look at the bob of that text in the [B+B] frame (otherwise the
> bob is not noticeable),
> the more I'm leaning towards some sort of cosmetics even if it introduces
> a very, very slight judder
> (i.e. c][C+c] is effectively 1+1/2 frames).
>
> In my first tries (a couple of days ago), I applied yadif to all frames
> and didn't like the results.
> I hate fuzzy and I hate judder even more, but now I'm considering both for
> what is effectively +1/2
> frame.
>
> > Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote
> >> [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible).
> >
> > Cosmetic filter is wanted and possible on B+B.
> >
> > B is an orphaned field, missing it's partner "b" . B+B is going to be
> full
> > of aliasing/stairstepping...
>
> Since it's for only 1/24th second, aliasing & bob really are not
> noticeable (except for the
> aforementioned text). (BTW, the ffmpeg docs have only 3 references to the
> word 'alias'. All 3 are in
> '8.6 acrusher'. Are the devs avoiding the word 'alias' for a reason?)
>
> >... The field interpolation algorithm used to
> > generate the pseudo "b" makes a difference. For example, -vf
> nnedi=field=t
> > applied selectively on that B+B frame will look substantially better,
> almost
> > like a fake B+b . Or temporally filtered B+b (from A+a and C+c data),
> such
> > as with QTGMC in vapoursynth or avisynth will look better than either. If
> > you want demos or more info let me know
>
> Thanks for the offer. You're very generous. I'll try hard to not burden
> you.
>
> I experimented with 'nnedi' a couple of months ago and will retrieve my
> notes. And I do pipe to/from


All your notes are invalid.


>
> VapourSynth for other tasks (mostly to use InterFrame) so I'm somewhat
> familiar with it. I'll try
> both your suggestions (and I'll try to not be too stupid).
>

estdif filter can act as smart bobber, and is faster then nnedi.


>
> You've given me a good push. Thanks so much for the guidance!
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".