On 7/18/20, Steinar H. Gunderson <steinar+ffm...@gunderson.no> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 11:06:17AM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>>>> The above picture pretty clearly shows otherwise...? Could you tell me >>>>> where my confusion would lie? >>>> The filter option amount/angle set is very small. >>> It's the default value. Could you recommend a command line? >> Unless you want to propose patch, no. > > OK, so the defaults create a broken image, and you're not willing to tell me > what parameters to use without me proposing a patch? (What would that patch > do?) > > I tried setting angle=50, and got > > http://storage.sesse.net/ffmpeg-radialblur2.png > > which looks more like a radial blur, but still is broken. Note the strong > aliasing (starburst) in the center, the jagged thick white lines (more > aliasing) on the left and right sides, and the fact that the vertical white > lines are all but gone. > > If a blur creates strong high-frequency components (ie., the very opposite > of > what a blur is supposed to do), it is a strong signal that the algorithm > chosen is just fundamentally wrong.
Nope, algorithm is just fine. You are interpreting results wrongly. > > /* Steinar */ > -- > Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/ > _______________________________________________ > 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". _______________________________________________ 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".
