Hi, On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Ashish Pratap Singh <ashk43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Ashish Singh <ashk43...@gmail.com> > > Hi, this patch changes previous one to framesync2. > SIMD is a work in progress for this filter. > > Signed-off-by: Ashish Singh <ashk43...@gmail.com> > --- > Changelog | 1 + > doc/filters.texi | 16 ++ > libavfilter/Makefile | 1 + > libavfilter/allfilters.c | 1 + > libavfilter/vf_vmafmotion.c | 413 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > libavfilter/vmaf_motion.h | 42 +++++ > 6 files changed, 474 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 libavfilter/vf_vmafmotion.c > create mode 100644 libavfilter/vmaf_motion.h One more general comment on this filter: it appears to me that the motion is calculated based on the reference, and we only use the "main" to apply the metadata to. Although this makes sense from the "vmaf" filter perspective, I'm actually wondering if - from the perspective of the "vmafmotion" filter alone, it wouldn't be simpler to just have a single filterpad input ("reference") and apply the metadata on it (when used by itself). (The "vmaf" filter could still apply metadata on the "main"). What do people think? Would you prefer the "vmaf" and "vmafmotion" to consistently apply the metadata on the "main" video frames, or would you prefer that the "vmafmotion" filter more accurately presents which frame is used for the motion scoring, which also happens to lead to simpler code / filterchains? Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel