Hallo > The HOWTO says: "If you have an interlaced source (broadcast) you can encode > it as interlaced stream. Or deinterlace the stream and encode it as > progressive stream. If you deinterlace it with yuvdenoise -F, you will lose > details." The bad thing is that Boradcast movies can also be not interlaced......
> Well, I do have an interlaced source, so this tells me I can go either way, > but if I deinterlace I will lose details. OK. Two sentences later the HOWTO > says "If you only want to play it back on the Monitor (progressive display) > the picture looks better when playing it back if it is deinterlaced." Which > appears to contradict what is said above: deinterlacing looses details, but > looks better when playing it back? Seems that the evolution hits me there. The thing was written at a time when the computer had quite a load with playing back the videos. And most people did not use the builtin deinteralces. Because they were not that good as the deinterlacing that was done before encoding the final video. Now the typical computer has more computing power. Playing back 1 mjpeg encoded stream with galv, and 3 other streams with mplayer, and the system has still not reached 100% cpu usage on my computer. So now you usually have the power and time of using a really good deinterlacer in your favourite player. > > At full size, you have interlacing, for a monitor you might want > > deinterlace, else leave the interlacing as it is. > Er, yes, those are my choices - deinterlace or leave it interlaced! That > statement sums up my confusion perfectly - it tells me my options but gives > me no clue which I should do! Is basically up to you. But usually leave interalced stream interlaced. > > The default values > > should be rather failsave. And create a interlaced movie. > Right, to date I've just gone with the default values. I'll experiment some > more but it's a painful process with an old PC. Get a 2nd PC and use them both ;) > I can ask one straight question though, which might attract a straight answer: > will the denoise process run faster on a deinterlaced stream or an interlaced > one? Hmm, .... never tested, at least I don't remember any results. Just take 1000 frames and test is yourselve. But I guess that a allready deinterlaced is faster. I don't know how long the deinterlacing process takes. You have to add the time for the deinterlacing to the denoising when you have a interlaced stream. I fear that you don't like my answer. auf hoffentlich bald, Berni the Chaos of Woodquarter Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~gz/bernhard ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
