On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Robert Krüger <krue...@lesspain.de> wrote:
> > > 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. > Is this what you meant: ffmpeg -i JEFF0059_01.MP4 -vf il=l=d:c=d,framerate=fps=24,il=l=i:c=i -pix_fmt yuv422p -c:v mpeg2video -flags +ildct -q 1 -c:a copy ~/tmp/framerate-iltest.mov Please ignore the fact that interlaced 24 fps does not make much sense but I did not have a good 60i sample with motion to convert to 50i. Apart from that the results look very good AFAICS, so I would say you were right and thank you. The only other thing I noticed was that the stream seams to be marked as interlaced when it comes out of the first il filter, which causes warnings like these: [Parsed_framerate_1 @ 0x7fa4e3426080] Interlaced frame found - the output will not be correct. Should the il filter not make it a progressive stream (I mean in terms of metadata) when in deinterleave mode? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
