Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> > <one...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> > <one...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> >> >> <one...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >> >> >>> >> > > <jamr...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > affect > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > them. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the > >> >> >> >>> >> > > telecined > >> >> >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the > >> >> >> >>> >> > > setfield > >> >> >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for > >> >> >> >>> >> > > them. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch > >> >> >> >>> >> attached. > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > Patch applied. > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> This was never approved by me. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing > >> >> >> >> bits. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > >> >> >> > I see no good out of it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > >> >> > > >> >> > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames > >> >> > as interlaced? > >> >> > >> >> The frames are not interlaced. > >> > > >> > Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive > >> > frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should > >> > mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. > >> > >> You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. > > > > Apparently yes because ... > > > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > > your argumentation, please elaborate. > > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that.
There are cameras that output interlaced content, they do not destroy any data (the "missing" data never existed). I don't think your definition is ideal, a more useful definition is that the fields of one frame originate from different points in time. > Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. I was more thinking of encoders, they will be less confused with the patch. > >> >> I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. > >> >> Telecine does not destroys data. > >> > > >> > Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. > >> > A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data > >> > (and the interlaced frames). Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
