Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote > On 2021-03-05 11:13, James Darnley wrote: >> On 05/03/2021, Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) <
> markfilipak@ > > wrote: >>> I seek a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics. In my >>> pursuit, >>> I look for such a >>> filter every time I peruse the filter docs for anything. I've yet to >>> find >>> such a filter. >>> >>> Do you know of a fields-to-frames filter that does not add cosmetics? >> >> separatefields - "splits each frame into its components fields, >> producing a new half height clip with twice the frame rate and twice >> the frame count" > > Yes, I could do (and have done) that, followed by 'shuffleframes=00', > followed by 'tinterlace' [1]. > But that seems like a lengthy (slow) way to do what should be a simple > (faster) thing [2]. > > [1] [A+b] ==> [A][b] ==> [A][A] ==> [A+A] > [2] [A+b] ==> [A+A] > > > If you're curious about what I'm doing, look: > [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d] ...SOURCE is a (consistent) mess [3] > [A+A][a+a][B+B][c+c][C+C][d+d][D+D][d+d][D+D][d+d] > ...yadif=mode=send_field > [A+A][a+a][B+B][B+B][C+C][c+c][D+D][d+d] ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 > 7 -1 -1 > [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d] ...tinterlace=mode=interleave_bottom to make TARGET > [4] > > [3] Telecined (=30fps) ==> frame 1 discard (=24fps) ==> frame 3 repeat > (=30fps). > [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible). > > > [A+a][B+c][C+d][D+d][D+d] ...SOURCE > [A][a][B][c][C][d][D][d][D][d] ...separatefields > [A][a][B][B][C][c][D][d] ...shuffleframes=0 1 2 2 4 3 6 7 -1 -1 > [A+a][B+B][C+c][D+d] ...weave=first_field=top to make TARGET > > Hmmm... That appears to work. I'll try it. > > I guess I got stuck on using tinterlace as the last step and couldn't see > that separatefields & > weave would be simpler (and faster) than yadif and without yadif's > cosmetics. > > Thanks! Yes, yadif is not the right filter for what you're doing, because of the spatial interpolation. Yadif is a deinterlacer, and as a general rule you don't deinterlace progressive content (that has matching field pairs), or you'll degrade it Mark Filipak (ffmpeg) wrote > [4] The TARGET is beautiful. No cosmetic filtering needed (or possible). Cosmetic filter is wanted and possible on B+B. B is an orphaned field, missing it's partner "b" . B+B is going to be full of aliasing/stairstepping. The field interpolation algorithm used to generate the pseudo "b" makes a difference. For example, -vf nnedi=field=t applied selectively on that B+B frame will look substantially better, almost like a fake B+b . Or temporally filtered B+b (from A+a and C+c data), such as with QTGMC in vapoursynth or avisynth will look better than either. If you want demos or more info let me know -- Sent from: http://ffmpeg-users.933282.n4.nabble.com/ _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
