On 28/05/2025 17.27, Paul B Mahol wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:19 PM Mark Filipak <markfilipak.i...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/05/2025 15.39, Alex Xu wrote:
I recently used the detelecine command in this thread:
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2025-May/059249.html
I got strange results with the `fieldmatch+decimate` combo, where
decimate
wasn't removing the correct frame.
I also got strange results with the `pullup` filter.
This may just be because my sample file was really exotic though.
Yes, there are 'strange' telecines. I've seen 'NTSC' field sequences in
which authors inserted
varying telecined sequences at varying times (when bad timing became
obvious to them) to maintain
running time and sync with audio, and even 'PAL' that took cinema to 25
fps via varying telecine,
again to maintain running time and audio sync. I gave up trying to make
them 24p in the usual ways
and simply 'bobbed' them at 59.940p and 50p.
None of those experiences justify keeping the 'detelecine' filter.
I'm simply using 'detelecine' as a clear-cut example of all the filters
that should be deprecated,
or at least marked "obsolete". That would really help novices avoid
headaches.
But user above just reported only single usecase where detelecine just
works for him.
That's not what Alex wrote. Alex wrote "got strange results with the `fieldmatch+decimate` combo" --
which I proceeded to explain. He didn't claim that 'detelecine' works. In addition,
'fieldmatch'+'decimate' can be configured to match the static functionality of 'detelecine', and
such static matching to a deprecated filter should be included in the documentation, as an aid.
The alternative is to continue emasculating FFmpeg.
_______________________________________________
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".
