On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Robert Krüger <krueger@lesspain.software> > wrote: > > > > what is the way to best contribute with test cases? I have two samples that > > I use for testing, so far the results look very, very promising but there > > are still a few artefact problems, so these could maybe serve as a good > > test case. In some cases the artefacts almost certainly look like there is > > a bug in motion vector calculation as a very large area suddenly begins to > > move in which really only a small part is/should be moving. > > > > How do I make this available to you or other devs at this stage? Just trac > > tickets or is it too early for that and you would like to work on this > > differently? After all it is always a grey area, when this can be > > considered solved, as it is a process of gradual improvements, so maybe > > it's not well-suited for a ticket. > > > > Let me know. Happy to contribute samples and some testing time here and > > there. > > > You can provide them either publicly or privately to any of devs interested. > I'm always interested in short samples exhibiting the problem.
Using http://b.pkh.me/sfx-sky.mov and comparing: ./ffplay -flags2 +export_mvs sfx-sky.mov -vf codecview=mv=pf with ./ffplay sfx-sky.mov -vf mestimate,codecview=mv=pf The encoded mvs looks much more meaningful that the ones found with mestimate. Typically, if you're looking for a global motion of some sort, the "native" mvs makes much more clear that there is a mostly static area at the bottom and a panning one on top with its direction pretty obvious. With mestimate, it just looks like small noise. Any plan to improve this? -- Clément B. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
