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
