Robert Krüger <krueger <at> lesspain.de> writes: > > > > Shouldn't this be: > > > > ... required to deinterleave before and > > > > interleave after this filter. > > > > ?
> From my understanding what the filter does and what > the visual results of each option would be You mean you tested deinterleaving and interleaving and it doesn't work or looks bad? > I would guess the text is meant as it is written I of course did not say that the current text means something else than what is written. (Just that it may not be the best solution for the given issue, both quality- and speed-wise.) > especially since Mark is both a native english > speaker and a very competent broadcast professional > but that's just my 2c. Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you: It is not the arguments that count but who makes them? But seriously: I can imagine (and I assume that is why you are saying my suggestion above is bad) that the deinterleaving can lead to artefacts (shadows) on top and bottom of the output file (assuming the "right" input) and should therefore be avoided. But in that case it should still be faster (and produce cleaner output) than deinterlacing to split the input video, use two framerate instances for the two fields of the input video and interleave the two output links of the two framerate instances. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
