On 04/18/2020 01:01 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Am Sa., 18. Apr. 2020 um 00:53 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
<markfilipak.windows+ffm...@gmail.com>:
I'm not using the 46 telecine anymore because you introduced me to
'pp=linblenddeint'
-- thanks again! -- which allowed me to decomb via the 55 telecine.
Why do you think that pp is a better de-interlacer than yadif?
(On hardware younger that's not more than ten years old.)
Carl Eugen
The subjects of prior threads are getting mixed in with this thread, "ffmepg
architecture question".
The architecture question is about recursion/non-recursion of filter complexes.
The prior threads were about how to decomb a telecine in general and a 55-telecine in particular.
Oh, well. It's my fault. I shouldn't have cranked one Jack-in-the-box before closing the previous
Jack-in-the-box.
Regarding deinterlace, Carl Eugen, I'm not trying to deinterlace. The transcode source is
progressive video (p24), not interlace video (i30-telecast or 125-telecast).
I'm performing p24-to-p60 transcode via 55 pull-down telecine. The result has 1 combed frame in
every set of 5 frames (P P C P P). I'm trying to decomb those combed frames.
'pp' seems to do a better job of decombing because it has a procedure, 'pp=linblenddeint', that
seems to do a better job of mixing the combed fields. 'yadif' seems to be optimized solely for
deinterlacing.
To be clear: I will never be processing telecast sources and will never be
deinterlacing.
Thank you all for being patient.
Regards,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
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".
