>>> Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di, 16.2.2016: >>>> On 2/8/16, Thomas Mundt <loudmax-at-yahoo...@ffmpeg.org> wrote: >>>>> Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 8.2.2016: >>> How does the speed compare to YADIF? >>> Or in other words, is it usable in real-time, or rather designed for >>> offline processing? >>> >> YADIF is quicker, because of its CPU optimizations. Without CPU >> optimizations BobWeaver is quicker. >> It should definitely be usable in real-time. > > Could you provide samples when this filters gives better output than > yadif/w3fdif ?
I´ve uploaded some samples for comparison: http://free-vsts.com/files/bwdif_w3fdif_yadif.zip I used the same command for all competitors: ffmpeg -i xxx_orig.mp4 -vf DEINTERLACER -r 50 -aspect 16:9 -vcodec libx264 -crf 18 out.mp4 bwdif DEINTERLACER: bwdif yadif DEINTERLACER: yadif=1 w3fdif DEINTERLACER: w3fdif=filter=complex For comparison of moving interlaced scenes I´ve uploaded the sample parkjoy(pj). This is difficult for deinterlacers and doesn´t look very good with all competitors. Yadif makes kind of a watercolor effect. W3fdif is much closer to the original progressive parkjoy source file. BobWeaver is very close to w3fdif, but shows less artefacts especially in moving front trees. For comparison of still interlaced scenes I´ve uploaded the samples kiosk and bars. Here w3fdif shows jigging because of its absent still pixel detection. Yadif and BobWeaver are fine. With sample bars only BobWeaver shows the correct 3 white lines in the timecode. I don´t have original progressive versions of kiosk and bars, since this is broadcast content. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
