чт, 29 мая 2025 г., 01:38 Mark Filipak <markfilipak.i...@gmail.com>:
> On 28/05/2025 18.15, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:35 PM Mark Filipak <markfilipak.i...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > Your futile and toxic attempts are in vain. > > Thanks for your opinion, Paul. Your desire to distract from real issues is > well known to us. > > > Detelecine filter is for fixed patterns, other filters try to guess > pattern > > by some heuristic which might be correct only in 99.9% cases. > > Yes, for static patterns, which 'fieldmatch' can also do. > > > Detelecine filter is just an attempt for inverse of telecine filter. And > as > > such its primary objective is testing. > > An attempt, you say? It's for testing, you say? Gee, I don't remember > reading that in the > documentation. Wasting the valuable word "detelecine" on a test filter is > a shame, wouldn't you say? > Generally I prefer to have two versions of similar things, so when one broke at least I have plan B or some easy way to compare them. > _______________________________________________ > 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". > _______________________________________________ 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".
