aviad rozenhek wrote: >> is there a clear way to put the swscale flags on a quality scale from low >> > to high? > >> i.e. is it true that in terms of quality and cpu usage: >> SWS_FAST_BILINEAR < SWS_BILINEAR < SWS_BICUBIC < SWS_X < SWS_POINT < >> > SWS_AREA < SWS_BICUBLIN < SWS_GAUSS < SWS_SINC < SWS_LANCZOS < SWS_SPLINE ? > > I wrote a little program to test this. > I tried to order them from fast to slow and from crude to fine quality on a > single scale. > I found out that I have to remove SWS_AREA, SWS_X, SWS_GAUSS, SWS_LANCZOS > > > the scale is: > > FAST/CRUDE > SLOW/FINE > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SWS_POINT < SWS_FAST_BILINEAR < SWS_BILINEAR < SWS_BICUBLIN < SWS_BICUBIC > < SWS_SPLINE < SWS_SINC > SWS_AREA > SWS_LANCZOS > SWS_X > SWS_GAUSS > > here is some raw data, gathered by downsampling 640x480 to 320x240 and back > again to 640x480, using mmx+mmx2 on E6400 intel > > errors(measured in sum-squared-differences) > SWS_POINT SWS_FAST_BILINEAR SWS_BILINEAR SWS_BICUBLIN SWS_BICUBIC > SWS_SPLINE SWS_SINC > 3769328057 2636583475 2155004550 2039237301 1980996866 > 1951467852 1902084412 > > time(how much time to downsample, copy and upsample, in seconds) > SWS_POINT SWS_FAST_BILINEAR SWS_BILINEAR SWS_BICUBLIN SWS_BICUBIC > SWS_SPLINE SWS_SINC > 1.1034 1.2289 1.7151 2.2899 2.6026 > 6.719 13.2753 > > > I hope someone finds it useful. if you want the code i'd be happy to > contribute. > Aviad >
Hello Aviad, These are results in seconds for ONE iteration. It's unbelieavably slow!!!! Can you please post the code? Thanks Vadim _______________________________________________ libav-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/libav-user
