Jul 2, 2023, 21:38 by one...@gmail.com: > On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 9:13 PM Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> wrote: > >> Jul 2, 2023, 20:48 by one...@gmail.com: >> >> > On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 6:57 PM Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > Single png images are not way to prove something. >> > >> > Please provide videos and not just single file that exhibit this issue. >> > (Keep showing same file over and over is not going to help show that it >> > helps) >> > >> > Also how PSNR/SSIM/VMAF changes before after not just in single sample >> but >> > in more samples. >> > >> >> I posted samples and instructions. Enough for a discussion. >> I'm not posting gigabytes of uncompressed samples. >> PSNR is irrelevant if there are visible artifacts. >> > > Nope, you havent. > > Some strange samples. > PSNR is relevant as also SSIM and VMAF. >
Fair enough, on a 4k60 game recording, with lots of text and movement, ffmpeg -i game_4k60test.mkv -filter_complex "[0:0] split [t1] [t2] ; [t2] interlace [t2] ; [t2] bwdif=mode=send_field [t2] ; [t1] [t2] ssim [t3]" -map "[t3]" -f null - Before: 0.990397 (20.175775) After: 0.990417 (20.184970) Slightly higher, but not really significant. PSNR (average): 32.711758 vs 32.704465 Slightly lower, but not really significant. > Ignoring this does not help project, but just force tyrannic behavior. > Relax, I'm not going to make you write a stablediffusion filter source :) _______________________________________________ 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".
