On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Davinder Singh <ds.mud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:15 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. > > > > I'm currently testing support for unrestricted search area which can be > used with EPZS, which has improved the quality. > Once I send the patch you can test if it actually reduces the artifacts or > doesn't make it worse. > > OK, great. I'll test the patch when it's there. Have you looked at the example with the moving wall? This really looks a bit like a bug in motion vectors and I also had the impression that this wasn't there when I was testing with earlier version from your branch but cannot be 100% sure. > For smaller details newer recursive algorithms should perform better. Like > this one, https://www.osapublishing.org/jdt/abstract.cfm?uri=jdt-11-7-580 > which uses Modified 3D recursive search iteratively. > So, at this point before any new algorithm is implemented, best way to test > is to verify the experiments I do improves the quality for most of the > samples or not. > > Makes sense. > One would like to compare PSNR, as it's hard compare each frame visually. > http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-April/193067.html (for > better > results, original sample should be 60fps, subsampled to 30) > for visual testing, I used to transcode interpolate sample to images and > compared them to original ones. > > Thanks for testing. > > Thanks for building this great filter. Robert _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
