On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Robert Krüger <krue...@lesspain.de> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> > wrote: > >> Robert Krüger <krueger <at> lesspain.de> writes: >> >> > Do you mean processing the top and bottom fields >> > as separate progressive >> >> Yes. >> (Sorry, I thought this is what "deinterleaving and >> interleaving" means.) >> >> > streams? >> >> Not necessarily "streams", just not processing them >> interlaced but deinterleaved. >> If this leads to shadows, then I would suggest to >> use two framerate instances. >> >> > I understand the variant with processing the fields as separate streams > with two framerate instances, but not the other one. One would have to test > but the more I think about it, I think it could very well work and result > in better quality as the deinterlacing/reinterlacing obviously destroys > motion information. > > One would probably have to make tests with interlaced footage that > contains a lot of motion. > > It would certainly be interesting to see that filter chain, though. I > haven't worked with the il filter at all, so I would have to read up on > that first. > Which I should have done first. I read the il filter docs and now I understand what you mean. If I am correct in assuming, what the framerate filter does, this might work just with one stream and would do what I described as using two streams. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
