On 04/17/2020 02:41 AM, Michael Koch wrote:
Am 17.04.2020 um 08:02 schrieb Mark Filipak:
Thanks to pdr0 -at- shaw.ca, My quest for the (nearly perfect) p24-to-p60
transcode has concluded.
But remaining is an ffmpeg behavior that seems (to me) to be key to understanding ffmpeg
architecture, to wit: The characteristics of frame traversal through a filter chain.
From a prior topic:
-----
Filter graph:
split[A] select='not(eq(mod(n+1\,5)\,3))' [C]interleave
[B]split[D]select='eq(mod(n+1\,5)\,2)'[F]blend[D]
[E]select='eq(mod(n+1\,5)\,3)'[G]
What I expected/hoped:
split[A] 0 1 _ 3 4 [C]interleave 0 1 B 3 4 //5 frames
[B]split[D] _ 1 _ _ _ [F]blend[D] |
[E] _ _ 2 _ _ [G] blend of 1+2
What appears to be happening:
split[A] 0 1 _ 3 4 [C]interleave 0 1 _ 3 4 //4 frames
[B]split[D] _ _ _ _ _ [F]blend[D]
[E] _ _ 2 _ _ [G]
The behavior is as though because frame 1 (see Note) can take the [A][C] path, it does take it &
that leaves nothing left to also take the [B][D][F] path, so blend never outputs.
Only an untested idea, what happens when you change the order of the inputs of the blend filter,
first [G] and then [F]?
This would be an important topic for someone writing a book, eh?
I assume you mean this, Michael:
split[A] select='not(eq(mod(n+1\,5)\,3))' [C]interleave
[B]split[D]select='eq(mod(n+1\,5)\,2)'[F]blend[D]
[E]select='eq(mod(n+1\,5)\,3)'[G]
split[A] 0 1 _ 3 4 [C]interleave 0 1 _ 3 4 //4 frames
[B]split[D] _ _ 2 _ _ [F]blend[D]
[E] _ _ _ _ _ [G]
Yes, I've done that, not because I thought it would make a difference, but because it just happens
to have been my first configuration.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
