I do hope you weren't offended that I said it was slow :-) I do appreciate that it is a better filter, and I also have noticed the downfalls of yuvdenoise (the 'after image' effect you mentioned). However my source generally doesn't have a lot of noise, and so I use "yuvdenoise -l 1 -m 1 -n 1 -p 0 -r 8". This removes the noise I need it to remove, and noticing any 'after-image' with settings this low becomes really difficult to see. I do still see it occasionally, though my wife thinks I'm nuts :-)
The chain that I've got right now takes around 18 hours to encode a 2-hour video (using an Athlon XP 2600). yuvdenoise is generally a large part of that (let's say 7 hours of it), so using y4mdenoise makes it a 2-day encoding job rather than < 1 day and I really couldn't tell too much difference with the naked eye between yuvdenoise and y4mdenoise, at least not enough to justify the difference in performance at this time.
-- Ray
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list Mjpeg-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
