On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 at 15:41, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Vasile Toncu (2017-12-28): > > There are some features that tinterlace has and reinterlace does not. > > > > Tinterlace has some more flags, reinterlace has only simple low pass > filter. > > Also, in a newer version, tinterlace does support input formats on 16 > bit. > > > > Expecting these two, there are no other special features. > > Thanks for that. I suspect that tinterlace is also faster. I suggest you > run some benchmarks. I run some benchmarks and reinterlace has basicaly the same performance as tinterlace. For some modes, tinterlace is up to 5% faster. I run my tests on an win64 machine and on an linux x64. > > > Can one simply change the tinterlace from GPL to LGPL? > > Of course not. There are two non-simple courses of action to achieve it: > > - Get the approval of all copyright holders. It has been done in the > past for other filters. > > - Remove the GPL tinterlace and at the same time add a new LGPL filter > that does the same thing and is also called tinterlace. > > The second is probably only acceptable if the new filter has all the > features and performance of the old one. Is there anything that I can do to the current version of reinterlace so that the filter can be accepted? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
