Jul 2, 2023, 20:41 by tmund...@gmail.com: > Am So., 2. Juli 2023 um 18:57 Uhr schrieb Lynne <d...@lynne.ee>: > >> Jul 2, 2023, 18:54 by d...@lynne.ee: >> >> > The issue is that clipping the interpolated temporal sample against >> > the spatially predicted sample causes artifacts to appear. >> > >> > Discovered while writing the Vulkan version (where I omitted the >> > same check). >> > >> > The clipping in the code is carried over from yadif. Removing the >> > same code in yadif does not make any difference to the output. >> > I think that the check was simply ill-adapted to the new prediction >> > code and does more harm. >> > >> > I tested replacing the range clip with only an FFMAX, and only an >> > FFMIN, but in both cases, artifacts still appeared. >> > >> > Test sample 1: >> https://files.lynne.ee/testsamples/mbaff_1080i60_idx.mkvTest sample 2: >> https://files.lynne.ee/testsamples/mbaff_bdmv_1080i60_8slice.mkv >> > >> > Command line: >> > ./ffmpeg_g -cpuflags 0 -i <INPUT> -vf bwdif=mode=send_field -c:v >> rawvideo -y <OUTPUT>.nut >> > Make sure to disable the assembly. >> > >> > Comparisons: >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_01_before.png >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_01_after.png >> > Generated from sample 1 via: >> > ffmpeg -ss 00:00:00.184 -i <INPUT>.nut -vf >> crop=w=420:h=240:x=700:y=300,scale=iw*2:ih*2 -y <OUTPUT>.png >> > >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_before.png >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_after.pngffmpeg -ss 00:00:00.417 -i >> <INPUT>.nut -vf crop=w=420:h=240:x=1100:y=200,scale=iw*2:ih*2 -y >> <OUTPUT>.png >> > >> >> Corrected links for the second sample: >> >> https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_before.png >> https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_after.png >> ffmpeg -ss 00:00:00.417 -i <INPUT>.nut -vf >> crop=w=420:h=240:x=1100:y=200,scale=iw*2:ih*2 -y <OUTPUT>.png >> >> I'm sure I hit a newline. The artifacts are a lot more noticeable in the >> second sample. >> > > I developed the bwdif to achieve the best possible balance between speed > and quality of all different image contents from the broadcast point of > view. This includes moving video as well as moving and static graphic > elements. Unfortunately, the improvement of one image content often leads > to the degradation of another. The code you removed fundamentally > stabilizes the static graphic elements. This outweighs the slightly more > frequent artifacts in moving video considering the general purpose of the > filter. >
Could you post examples? I've been unable to find any that look worse with the patch. _______________________________________________ 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".
