Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 14:41, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >: > > > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol < > one...@gmail.com>: > > >> > > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > > >> > : > > >> >> > > >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > > >> >> > : > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > > >> >> >> >> : > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> > : > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> >> : > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> >> > : > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > : > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl > Eugen > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > : > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames > as > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > affect > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > them. > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > telecined > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > setfield > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > them. > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new > patch > > >> >> >> >>> >> attached. > > >> >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >> >>> > Patch applied. > > >> >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> This was never approved by me. > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing > > >> >> >> >> bits. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > > >> >> >> > I see no good out of it. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames > > >> >> > as interlaced? > > >> >> > > >> >> The frames are not interlaced. > > >> > > > >> > Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive > > >> > frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should > > >> > mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. > > >> > > >> You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. > > > > > > Apparently yes because ... > > > > > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > > >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > > > > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > > > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > > > your argumentation, please elaborate. > > > > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that. > > There are cameras that output interlaced content, they do not > destroy any data (the "missing" data never existed). > > I don't think your definition is ideal, a more useful definition is that > the fields of one frame originate from different points in time. > > > Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. > > I was more thinking of encoders, they will be less confused with the > patch. > > > >> >> I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. > > >> >> Telecine does not destroys data. > > >> > > > >> > Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. > > >> > A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data > > >> > (and the interlaced frames). > You both seem to misunderstand, confusing the structure of the frame with the
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > >> > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> > : > >> >> > >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> > : > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> >> >> : > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> > : > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> : > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> > : > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >> >> >>> >> > > : > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > : > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > affect > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > them. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the > >> >> >> >>> >> > > telecined > >> >> >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the > >> >> >> >>> >> > > setfield > >> >> >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for > >> >> >> >>> >> > > them. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch > >> >> >> >>> >> attached. > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > Patch applied. > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> This was never approved by me. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing > >> >> >> >> bits. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > >> >> >> > I see no good out of it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > >> >> > > >> >> > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames > >> >> > as interlaced? > >> >> > >> >> The frames are not interlaced. > >> > > >> > Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive > >> > frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should > >> > mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. > >> > >> You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. > > > > Apparently yes because ... > > > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > > your argumentation, please elaborate. > > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that. There are cameras that output interlaced content, they do not destroy any data (the "missing" data never existed). I don't think your definition is ideal, a more useful definition is that the fields of one frame originate from different points in time. > Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. I was more thinking of encoders, they will be less confused with the patch. > >> >> I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. > >> >> Telecine does not destroys data. > >> > > >> > Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. > >> > A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data > >> > (and the interlaced frames). Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> > : >> >> >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> > : >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> >> >> : >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >>> > : >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >>> >> : >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >>> >> > : >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> >> >>> >> > > : >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > : >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't >> >> >> >>> >> > > > affect >> >> >> >>> >> > > > them. >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the >> >> >> >>> >> > > telecined >> >> >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the >> >> >> >>> >> > > setfield >> >> >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for >> >> >> >>> >> > > them. >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch >> >> >> >>> >> attached. >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > Patch applied. >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> This was never approved by me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing >> >> >> >> bits. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. >> >> >> > I see no good out of it. >> >> >> >> >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! >> >> > >> >> > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames >> >> > as interlaced? >> >> >> >> The frames are not interlaced. >> > >> > Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive >> > frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should >> > mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. >> > >> >> You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. > > Apparently yes because ... > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > your argumentation, please elaborate. > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that. Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. >> >> I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. >> >> Telecine does not destroys data. >> > >> > Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. >> > A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data >> > (and the interlaced frames). > > Happy Easter, Carl Eugen > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > >> > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> > : > >> >> > >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> >> : > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >>> > : > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >>> >> : > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >>> >> > : > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >> >>> >> > > : > >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > >> >> >>> >> > > > > : > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect > >> >> >>> >> > > > them. > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > >> >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > >> >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch > >> >> >>> >> attached. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Patch applied. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> This was never approved by me. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. > >> >> > > >> >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What should be changed about it? > >> >> > > >> >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > >> >> > I see no good out of it. > >> >> > >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > >> > > >> > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames > >> > as interlaced? > >> > >> The frames are not interlaced. > > > > Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive > > frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should > > mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. > > > > You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. Apparently yes because ... > Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > Telecine is not interlacing. ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand your argumentation, please elaborate. > >> I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. > >> Telecine does not destroys data. > > > > Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. > > A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data > > (and the interlaced frames). Happy Easter, Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020, at 15:00, Paul B Mahol wrote: > You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. Whatever the technical merit, please do not insult people. -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> > : >> >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> >> : >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> > : >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> >> : >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> >> > : >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> >>> >> > > : >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos >> >> >>> >> > > > > : >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as >> >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, >> >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect >> >> >>> >> > > > them. >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch >> >> >>> >> attached. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Patch applied. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >>> This was never approved by me. >> >> >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. >> >> > >> >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! >> >> >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? >> >> > >> >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. >> >> > I see no good out of it. >> >> >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! >> > >> > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames >> > as interlaced? >> >> The frames are not interlaced. > > Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive > frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should > mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. > You are very ignorant or very stupid or both. Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. Telecine is not interlacing. >> I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. >> Telecine does not destroys data. > > Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. > A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data > (and the interlaced frames). > > Carl Eugen > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > >> > >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> : > >> >>> > >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> > : > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> >> : > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> >> > : > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >>> >> > > : > >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> >> > > > > : > >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as > >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect > >> >>> >> > > > them. > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch > >> >>> >> attached. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Patch applied. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> This was never approved by me. > >> >> > >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. > >> > > >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> So revert it ASAP! > >> >> > >> >> What should be changed about it? > >> > > >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > >> > I see no good out of it. > >> > >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > > > > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames > > as interlaced? > > The frames are not interlaced. Using the usual 3:2 telecine, the filter outputs two progressive frames, followed by three interlaced frames, the patch should mark the interlaced frames as interlaced and I believe it does. > I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. > Telecine does not destroys data. Telecine duplicates some data, leading to interlaced frames. A (perfect) detecine process can remove the duplicated data (and the interlaced frames). Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/12/20, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul B Mahol wrote: >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> : >> >>> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> > : >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> : >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > : >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >>> >> > > : >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > > > > : >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect >> >>> >> > > > them. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch >> >>> >> attached. >> >>> > >> >>> > Patch applied. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> This was never approved by me. >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. >> > >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. >> > >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? >> > >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. >> > I see no good out of it. >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > > If you feel the patch is wrong, then you should present technical > arguments to that purpose. Otherwise, there was plenty time on the ML > to review it, and you only commented after it was on the ML for over a > week and commited, despite clearly knowing that it existed. > I do not feel. I know that patch is incorrect. And already objected on IRC. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> : >> >>> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> > : >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> : >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > : >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >>> >> > > : >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > > > > : >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect >> >>> >> > > > them. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch >> >>> >> attached. >> >>> > >> >>> > Patch applied. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> This was never approved by me. >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. >> > >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. >> > >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? >> > >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. >> > I see no good out of it. >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > > Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames > as interlaced? The frames are not interlaced. I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. Telecine does not destroys data. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> : > >>> > >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> > : > >>> >> > >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> : > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > : > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >>> >> > > : > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > > > > : > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as > >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >>> >> > >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > >>> > > >>> > Patch applied. > >>> > > >>> > >>> This was never approved by me. > >> > >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. > > > > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > > > >> > >>> So revert it ASAP! > >> > >> What should be changed about it? > > > > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > > I see no good out of it. > > I gonna revert this ASAP! If you feel the patch is wrong, then you should present technical arguments to that purpose. Otherwise, there was plenty time on the ML to review it, and you only commented after it was on the ML for over a week and commited, despite clearly knowing that it existed. - Hendrik ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > > On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> : > >>> > >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> > : > >>> >> > >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> : > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > : > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >>> >> > > : > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > > > > : > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as > >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, > >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >>> >> > >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > >>> > > >>> > Patch applied. > >>> > > >>> > >>> This was never approved by me. > >> > >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. > > > > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > > > >> > >>> So revert it ASAP! > >> > >> What should be changed about it? > > > > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > > I see no good out of it. > > I gonna revert this ASAP! Could you explain why it is wrong to mark interlaced frames as interlaced? Or do you believe that progressive frames are marked interlaced? Or should other frames be marked as progressive? Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> : >>> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> > : >>> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> >> : >>> >> > >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> >> > : >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >>> >> > > : >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> >> > > > > : >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >>> >> > > >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >>> >> > >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >>> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. >>> > >>> > Patch applied. >>> > >>> >>> This was never approved by me. >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. > > Lies, I was against that idea from start. > >> >>> So revert it ASAP! >> >> What should be changed about it? > > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. > I see no good out of it. I gonna revert this ASAP! ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : >> >> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> > : >> >> >> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> : >> >> > >> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> > : >> >> > > >> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> > > : >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> > > > > : >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, >> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. >> >> > > >> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> >> > > >> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >> >> > >> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >> >> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. >> > >> > Patch applied. >> > >> >> This was never approved by me. > > You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. Lies, I was against that idea from start. > >> So revert it ASAP! > > What should be changed about it? Return of code as it was before this pointless change. I see no good out of it. > > Carl Eugen > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol : > > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > : > >> > >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> : > >> > > >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> > : > >> > > > >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> > > : > >> > > > > >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> > > > > : > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, > >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > >> > > > > >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > >> > > > >> > > Clearly, thank you! > >> > > > >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > >> > > >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > >> > >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > > > > Patch applied. > > > > This was never approved by me. You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. > So revert it ASAP! What should be changed about it? Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > : >> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> : >> > >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> > : >> > > >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> > > : >> > > > >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> > > > > : >> > > > > >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> > > > > >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> > > > > >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> > > > >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. >> > > >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> > > >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >> > >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > > Patch applied. > This was never approved by me. So revert it ASAP! ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos : > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > : > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > : > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer : > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, > > > > >> other frames as progressive. > > > > > > > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > > > > > > > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > > > > > > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > > > > > > Clearly, thank you! > > > > > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. Patch applied. Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos : > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > : > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > : > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer : > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, > > > > >> other frames as progressive. > > > > > > > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > > > > > > > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > > > > > > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > > > > > > Clearly, thank you! > > > > > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > > Please comment, Carl Eugen Ping. Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Andriy Gelman: > On Sun, 05. Apr 10:34, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 03:30 Uhr schrieb Andriy Gelman >> : >>> >>> On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos : > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > : >> >> New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. >>> >>> FYI >>> Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand >>> when >>> an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. >>> >>> If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then >>> pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will >>> create >>> a new entry for the patch. >>> Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. > >> >> All revisions of the patch in this thread were picked up and processed >> by patchwork. >> (Sorry if I misunderstood your mail) > > I did this manually myself :) (i.e. removed "Re: " from subject line and > reparsed the emails in patchwork) > Thanks for all the work you put into patchwork, Andriy. Much appreciated. - Andreas ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On Sun, 05. Apr 10:34, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 03:30 Uhr schrieb Andriy Gelman > : > > > > On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > : > > > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > > : > > > > > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > > > > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > > > > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > > > > > > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > > > > > Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > > > > FYI > > Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand > > when > > an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. > > > > If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then > > pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will > > create > > a new entry for the patch. > > Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. > > All revisions of the patch in this thread were picked up and processed > by patchwork. > (Sorry if I misunderstood your mail) I did this manually myself :) (i.e. removed "Re: " from subject line and reparsed the emails in patchwork) -- Andriy ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 03:30 Uhr schrieb Andriy Gelman : > > On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > : > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > : > > > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > > > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > > > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > > > > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > > > Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > > FYI > Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when > an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. > > If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then > pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will > create > a new entry for the patch. > Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. All revisions of the patch in this thread were picked up and processed by patchwork. (Sorry if I misunderstood your mail) Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > : > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > : > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer : > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, > > > > >> other frames as progressive. > > > > > > > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > > > > > > > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > > > > > > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > > > > > > Clearly, thank you! > > > > > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. > FYI Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will create a new entry for the patch. Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. Thanks, -- Andriy ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos :
>
> Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> :
> >
> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer :
> > >
> > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced,
> > > >> other frames as progressive.
> > > >
> > > > New patch with changes to fate attached.
> > > >
> > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen
> > >
> > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them.
> >
> > Clearly, thank you!
> >
> > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined
> > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield
> > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them.
>
> New patch attached that also sets top_field_first
Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached.
Please comment, Carl Eugen
From cd2f7b4336c1d0b786ba613d525830ff152788a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carl Eugen Hoyos
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 01:00:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced.
---
libavfilter/vf_telecine.c| 8
tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch | 10 +-
tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup | 24
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
index 62599a7a3a..ff8151dfc9 100644
--- a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
+++ b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
@@ -207,6 +207,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
s->stride[i],
(s->planeheight[i] - !s->first_field + 1) / 2);
}
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 1;
+s->frame[nout]->top_field_first = !s->first_field;
nout++;
len--;
s->occupied = 0;
@@ -220,6 +222,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
inpicref->data[i], inpicref->linesize[i],
s->stride[i],
s->planeheight[i]);
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = inpicref->interlaced_frame;
+s->frame[nout]->top_field_first = inpicref->top_field_first;
nout++;
len -= 2;
}
@@ -236,6 +240,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
for (i = 0; i < nout; i++) {
AVFrame *frame = av_frame_clone(s->frame[i]);
+int interlaced = frame->interlaced_frame;
+int tff= frame->top_field_first;
if (!frame) {
av_frame_free();
@@ -243,6 +249,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
}
av_frame_copy_props(frame, inpicref);
+frame->interlaced_frame = interlaced;
+frame->top_field_first = tff;
frame->pts = ((s->start_time == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) ? 0 : s->start_time) +
av_rescale(outlink->frame_count_in, s->ts_unit.num,
s->ts_unit.den);
--
2.24.1
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos :
>
> Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer :
> >
> > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> > > :
> > >
> > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced,
> > >> other frames as progressive.
> > >
> > > New patch with changes to fate attached.
> > >
> > > Please comment, Carl Eugen
> >
> > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them.
>
> Clearly, thank you!
>
> New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined
> frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield
> filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them.
New patch attached that also sets top_field_first
Please comment, Carl Eugen
From cd2f7b4336c1d0b786ba613d525830ff152788a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carl Eugen Hoyos
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 01:00:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced.
---
libavfilter/vf_telecine.c| 8
tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch | 10 +-
tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup | 24
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
index 62599a7a3a..ff8151dfc9 100644
--- a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
+++ b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
@@ -207,6 +207,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
s->stride[i],
(s->planeheight[i] - !s->first_field + 1) / 2);
}
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 1;
+s->frame[nout]->top_field_first = !s->first_field;
nout++;
len--;
s->occupied = 0;
@@ -220,6 +222,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
inpicref->data[i], inpicref->linesize[i],
s->stride[i],
s->planeheight[i]);
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = inpicref->interlaced_frame;
+s->frame[nout]->top_field_first = inpicref->top_field_first;
nout++;
len -= 2;
}
@@ -236,6 +240,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
for (i = 0; i < nout; i++) {
AVFrame *frame = av_frame_clone(s->frame[i]);
+int interlaced = frame->interlaced_frame;
+int tff= frame->top_field_first;
if (!frame) {
av_frame_free();
@@ -243,6 +249,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
}
av_frame_copy_props(frame, inpicref);
+frame->interlaced_frame = interlaced;
+frame->top_field_first = tff;
frame->pts = ((s->start_time == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) ? 0 : s->start_time) +
av_rescale(outlink->frame_count_in, s->ts_unit.num,
s->ts_unit.den);
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
index c3165b872d..eb0fc3c224 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-yuv410p a6c9b4065e8253d8120772f69be0bf04
-yuv411p b913e634ad37ce046240252bed8681fb
-yuv420p a9286560141eb14595e427dbe5829b00
-yuv422p 11ad22ce00c5e8a30d0472f29fb15434
-yuv444p 6c5b0c1343d625d0656b6755906fd874
+yuv410p 572e4416ae6988dab3dbdbed3296b57c
+yuv411p ce9ccbb1985b7840955e57c23d4bc003
+yuv420p f06c53990f577893fef6a4270aab691b
+yuv422p 1c6ad2c3198ad577593214ebc9bc5705
+yuv444p 24813e175b1b09c01f5ec16149d83fce
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
index c6ddb3489a..88c1dd565d 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
-gray415c928947f83f9b45c24ad15a094bda
-yuv410p 0f29d0b6394871e1e6cde484b4f351f4
-yuv411p ec059b1992e1acda472b9b2dd3e4506b
-yuv420p dba6303cd02cc39cb0db7b546793d565
-yuv422p d7d3224dd900bb1b96608a28a704360d
-yuv440p d4c5f20701cfceb4bbf7d75cfcc13514
-yuv444p 7e405274037e7f2ab845d7413a71e16d
-yuvj411pdc602e7bd3449d16e17e695815616b1e
-yuvj420pb98ec86eeef2d512aeb2fc4d32ffa656
-yuvj422pf09c3240bb662477b76ce4da34b4feed
-yuvj440p8d3ab69e2bd2f9be323c18922533
-yuvj444p2dc27560eed5d685354796de853c
+gray0af7cbb0cfb3efcb946e697c4b7bd5f9
+yuv410p c7a9e3aeb6b30eadcdf6ca5acb52c5b2
+yuv411p 2e19fb03dd57e4700ff560da3a84402e
+yuv420p 7019c5de9774970eb3a7828cb92439e8
+yuv422p 8fc1c9fff0aa2566a50ff10a54e80ba7
+yuv440p
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer :
>
> On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> > :
> >
> >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced,
> >> other frames as progressive.
> >
> > New patch with changes to fate attached.
> >
> > Please comment, Carl Eugen
>
> Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them.
Clearly, thank you!
New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined
frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield
filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them.
Please review, Carl Eugen
From 97f3bba7b4f4f4bf4bbb69376daeb45e3386ba62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carl Eugen Hoyos
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 23:04:15 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced.
---
libavfilter/vf_telecine.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
index 62599a7a3a..3e65f08e39 100644
--- a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
+++ b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
@@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
s->stride[i],
(s->planeheight[i] - !s->first_field + 1) / 2);
}
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 1;
nout++;
len--;
s->occupied = 0;
@@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
inpicref->data[i], inpicref->linesize[i],
s->stride[i],
s->planeheight[i]);
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = inpicref->interlaced_frame;
nout++;
len -= 2;
}
@@ -236,6 +238,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
for (i = 0; i < nout; i++) {
AVFrame *frame = av_frame_clone(s->frame[i]);
+int interlaced = frame->interlaced_frame;
if (!frame) {
av_frame_free();
@@ -243,6 +246,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
}
av_frame_copy_props(frame, inpicref);
+frame->interlaced_frame = interlaced;
frame->pts = ((s->start_time == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) ? 0 : s->start_time) +
av_rescale(outlink->frame_count_in, s->ts_unit.num,
s->ts_unit.den);
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
index c3165b872d..eb0fc3c224 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-yuv410p a6c9b4065e8253d8120772f69be0bf04
-yuv411p b913e634ad37ce046240252bed8681fb
-yuv420p a9286560141eb14595e427dbe5829b00
-yuv422p 11ad22ce00c5e8a30d0472f29fb15434
-yuv444p 6c5b0c1343d625d0656b6755906fd874
+yuv410p 572e4416ae6988dab3dbdbed3296b57c
+yuv411p ce9ccbb1985b7840955e57c23d4bc003
+yuv420p f06c53990f577893fef6a4270aab691b
+yuv422p 1c6ad2c3198ad577593214ebc9bc5705
+yuv444p 24813e175b1b09c01f5ec16149d83fce
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
index c6ddb3489a..88c1dd565d 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
-gray415c928947f83f9b45c24ad15a094bda
-yuv410p 0f29d0b6394871e1e6cde484b4f351f4
-yuv411p ec059b1992e1acda472b9b2dd3e4506b
-yuv420p dba6303cd02cc39cb0db7b546793d565
-yuv422p d7d3224dd900bb1b96608a28a704360d
-yuv440p d4c5f20701cfceb4bbf7d75cfcc13514
-yuv444p 7e405274037e7f2ab845d7413a71e16d
-yuvj411pdc602e7bd3449d16e17e695815616b1e
-yuvj420pb98ec86eeef2d512aeb2fc4d32ffa656
-yuvj422pf09c3240bb662477b76ce4da34b4feed
-yuvj440p8d3ab69e2bd2f9be323c18922533
-yuvj444p2dc27560eed5d685354796de853c
+gray0af7cbb0cfb3efcb946e697c4b7bd5f9
+yuv410p c7a9e3aeb6b30eadcdf6ca5acb52c5b2
+yuv411p 2e19fb03dd57e4700ff560da3a84402e
+yuv420p 7019c5de9774970eb3a7828cb92439e8
+yuv422p 8fc1c9fff0aa2566a50ff10a54e80ba7
+yuv440p 16775691a106117ecd244c45252f4ba7
+yuv444p b6ec514e4c30fea6b0dd696bf7d147d5
+yuvj411p0b899555985616330109a2381d9828a4
+yuvj420p1f51fe0c2c8d5ba12409bc4c821fed56
+yuvj422p5e9a13247fe5201ea83d3a64241631e3
+yuvj440p2e22b2e340f372792bec5ba0a8f46822
+yuvj444pbecc016653bb26b472625d87dbfc10c4
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > : > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, >> other frames as progressive. > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > > Please comment, Carl Eugen Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos :
> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced,
> other frames as progressive.
New patch with changes to fate attached.
Please comment, Carl Eugen
From 97f3bba7b4f4f4bf4bbb69376daeb45e3386ba62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carl Eugen Hoyos
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 23:04:15 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced.
---
libavfilter/vf_telecine.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
index 62599a7a3a..3e65f08e39 100644
--- a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
+++ b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
@@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
s->stride[i],
(s->planeheight[i] - !s->first_field + 1) / 2);
}
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 1;
nout++;
len--;
s->occupied = 0;
@@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
inpicref->data[i], inpicref->linesize[i],
s->stride[i],
s->planeheight[i]);
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = inpicref->interlaced_frame;
nout++;
len -= 2;
}
@@ -236,6 +238,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
for (i = 0; i < nout; i++) {
AVFrame *frame = av_frame_clone(s->frame[i]);
+int interlaced = frame->interlaced_frame;
if (!frame) {
av_frame_free();
@@ -243,6 +246,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
}
av_frame_copy_props(frame, inpicref);
+frame->interlaced_frame = interlaced;
frame->pts = ((s->start_time == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) ? 0 : s->start_time) +
av_rescale(outlink->frame_count_in, s->ts_unit.num,
s->ts_unit.den);
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
index c3165b872d..eb0fc3c224 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-yuv410p a6c9b4065e8253d8120772f69be0bf04
-yuv411p b913e634ad37ce046240252bed8681fb
-yuv420p a9286560141eb14595e427dbe5829b00
-yuv422p 11ad22ce00c5e8a30d0472f29fb15434
-yuv444p 6c5b0c1343d625d0656b6755906fd874
+yuv410p 572e4416ae6988dab3dbdbed3296b57c
+yuv411p ce9ccbb1985b7840955e57c23d4bc003
+yuv420p f06c53990f577893fef6a4270aab691b
+yuv422p 1c6ad2c3198ad577593214ebc9bc5705
+yuv444p 24813e175b1b09c01f5ec16149d83fce
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
index c6ddb3489a..88c1dd565d 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
-gray415c928947f83f9b45c24ad15a094bda
-yuv410p 0f29d0b6394871e1e6cde484b4f351f4
-yuv411p ec059b1992e1acda472b9b2dd3e4506b
-yuv420p dba6303cd02cc39cb0db7b546793d565
-yuv422p d7d3224dd900bb1b96608a28a704360d
-yuv440p d4c5f20701cfceb4bbf7d75cfcc13514
-yuv444p 7e405274037e7f2ab845d7413a71e16d
-yuvj411pdc602e7bd3449d16e17e695815616b1e
-yuvj420pb98ec86eeef2d512aeb2fc4d32ffa656
-yuvj422pf09c3240bb662477b76ce4da34b4feed
-yuvj440p8d3ab69e2bd2f9be323c18922533
-yuvj444p2dc27560eed5d685354796de853c
+gray0af7cbb0cfb3efcb946e697c4b7bd5f9
+yuv410p c7a9e3aeb6b30eadcdf6ca5acb52c5b2
+yuv411p 2e19fb03dd57e4700ff560da3a84402e
+yuv420p 7019c5de9774970eb3a7828cb92439e8
+yuv422p 8fc1c9fff0aa2566a50ff10a54e80ba7
+yuv440p 16775691a106117ecd244c45252f4ba7
+yuv444p b6ec514e4c30fea6b0dd696bf7d147d5
+yuvj411p0b899555985616330109a2381d9828a4
+yuvj420p1f51fe0c2c8d5ba12409bc4c821fed56
+yuvj422p5e9a13247fe5201ea83d3a64241631e3
+yuvj440p2e22b2e340f372792bec5ba0a8f46822
+yuvj444pbecc016653bb26b472625d87dbfc10c4
diff --git a/tests/ref/fate/filter-yadif-mode0 b/tests/ref/fate/filter-yadif-mode0
index be807f9de5..15017492ff 100644
--- a/tests/ref/fate/filter-yadif-mode0
+++ b/tests/ref/fate/filter-yadif-mode0
@@ -33,3 +33,34 @@
0, 36, 36,1, 622080, 0x2e81bd32
0, 37, 37,1, 622080, 0x852cf6cf
0, 38, 38,1, 622080, 0xb055f0e5
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
+yadif->cur->interlaced_frame: 1
[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced
Hi!
Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced,
other frames as progressive.
Please comment, Carl Eugen
From 97f3bba7b4f4f4bf4bbb69376daeb45e3386ba62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carl Eugen Hoyos
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 23:04:15 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced.
---
libavfilter/vf_telecine.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
index 62599a7a3a..3e65f08e39 100644
--- a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
+++ b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c
@@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
s->stride[i],
(s->planeheight[i] - !s->first_field + 1) / 2);
}
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 1;
nout++;
len--;
s->occupied = 0;
@@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
inpicref->data[i], inpicref->linesize[i],
s->stride[i],
s->planeheight[i]);
+s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 0;
nout++;
len -= 2;
}
@@ -236,6 +238,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
for (i = 0; i < nout; i++) {
AVFrame *frame = av_frame_clone(s->frame[i]);
+int interlaced = frame->interlaced_frame;
if (!frame) {
av_frame_free();
@@ -243,6 +246,7 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
}
av_frame_copy_props(frame, inpicref);
+frame->interlaced_frame = interlaced;
frame->pts = ((s->start_time == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) ? 0 : s->start_time) +
av_rescale(outlink->frame_count_in, s->ts_unit.num,
s->ts_unit.den);
--
2.24.1
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
