Am So., 2. Juli 2023 um 20:58 Uhr schrieb Lynne <d...@lynne.ee>: > Jul 2, 2023, 20:41 by tmund...@gmail.com: > > > Am So., 2. Juli 2023 um 18:57 Uhr schrieb Lynne <d...@lynne.ee>: > > > >> Jul 2, 2023, 18:54 by d...@lynne.ee: > >> > >> > The issue is that clipping the interpolated temporal sample against > >> > the spatially predicted sample causes artifacts to appear. > >> > > >> > Discovered while writing the Vulkan version (where I omitted the > >> > same check). > >> > > >> > The clipping in the code is carried over from yadif. Removing the > >> > same code in yadif does not make any difference to the output. > >> > I think that the check was simply ill-adapted to the new prediction > >> > code and does more harm. > >> > > >> > I tested replacing the range clip with only an FFMAX, and only an > >> > FFMIN, but in both cases, artifacts still appeared. > >> > > >> > Test sample 1: > >> https://files.lynne.ee/testsamples/mbaff_1080i60_idx.mkvTest sample 2: > >> https://files.lynne.ee/testsamples/mbaff_bdmv_1080i60_8slice.mkv > >> > > >> > Command line: > >> > ./ffmpeg_g -cpuflags 0 -i <INPUT> -vf bwdif=mode=send_field -c:v > >> rawvideo -y <OUTPUT>.nut > >> > Make sure to disable the assembly. > >> > > >> > Comparisons: > >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_01_before.png > >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_01_after.png > >> > Generated from sample 1 via: > >> > ffmpeg -ss 00:00:00.184 -i <INPUT>.nut -vf > >> crop=w=420:h=240:x=700:y=300,scale=iw*2:ih*2 -y <OUTPUT>.png > >> > > >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_before.png > >> > https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_after.pngffmpeg -ss 00:00:00.417 -i > >> <INPUT>.nut -vf crop=w=420:h=240:x=1100:y=200,scale=iw*2:ih*2 -y > >> <OUTPUT>.png > >> > > >> > >> Corrected links for the second sample: > >> > >> https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_before.png > >> https://files.lynne.ee/bwdif_02_after.png > >> ffmpeg -ss 00:00:00.417 -i <INPUT>.nut -vf > >> crop=w=420:h=240:x=1100:y=200,scale=iw*2:ih*2 -y <OUTPUT>.png > >> > >> I'm sure I hit a newline. The artifacts are a lot more noticeable in the > >> second sample. > >> > > > > I developed the bwdif to achieve the best possible balance between speed > > and quality of all different image contents from the broadcast point of > > view. This includes moving video as well as moving and static graphic > > elements. Unfortunately, the improvement of one image content often leads > > to the degradation of another. The code you removed fundamentally > > stabilizes the static graphic elements. This outweighs the slightly more > > frequent artifacts in moving video considering the general purpose of the > > filter. > > > > Could you post examples? I've been unable to find any that look worse > with the patch. >
Unfortunately, I no longer have most of the test material that I used years ago at the development of the bwdif. But on the quick I have this clip with an "Archiv" insert. With your patch the letters are jumping. Without your patch they stay static. https://www.dropbox.com/s/jzoezjbi3ho9nja/bwdif-test.mov?dl=1 ffmpeg.exe -cpuflags 0 -i "bwdif-test.mov" -vf "bwdif=1:-1:1, scale=1920:1080" -sws_flags lanczos -aspect 16:9 -c:v libx264 -crf 21 "bwdif_original.mp4" ffmpeg_lynne_patch.exe -cpuflags 0 -i "bwdif-test.mov" -vf "bwdif=1:-1:1, scale=1920:1080" -sws_flags lanczos -aspect 16:9 -c:v libx264 -crf 21 "bwdif_lynne_patch.mp4" https://www.dropbox.com/s/tonsomtkhyaha91/bwdif_original.mp4?dl=1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/aaj8o5yzlocu55z/bwdif_lynne_patch.mp4?dl=1 Regards, Thomas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".