On 2/16/16, Thomas Mundt <loudmax-at-yahoo...@ffmpeg.org> wrote: >>>> 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.
If nobody plans to comment on code I will apply this soon. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
