On Thursday 25 February 2010 21:59:27 Al Bogner wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 18:09:31 schrieben Sie: > > Hi Georg, > > > At the moment it looks like you have to handtune the parameters for some > > clips. > > However the fieldnum=40:mincontrast=0.3 does not hurt for the other > > movies as well. So I would see how far I get with this setting. > > I am testing with this: > > > transcode -J smartdeinter -i "$FILE" \ > -x ffmpeg -y ffmpeg,tcaud -F ffv1 -o "$DEINTERFILE" > > > transcode -J stabilize fieldnum=40:mincontrast=0.3 -i "$FILE" \ > -x ffmpeg -y null,null -o dummy transcode -J stabilize=fieldnum=40:mincontrast=0.3 -i "$FILE" \ the "=" is important! <copied from other email> > [transcode] warning: unused command line argument detected (11/12) > [transcode] warning: argc[11]=fieldnum=40:mincontrast=0.3 (unused) > > So if these options are unused, why was the boat video better. </copied from other email> I don't know. Did you use maxangle=0 as well? > > > transcode -J transform=zoom=10:smoothing=20 -i "$FILE" \ > -x ffmpeg -y ffmpeg,tcaud -F ffv1 -o "$STABLEFILE" > > > Am I right, that fieldnum=40:mincontrast=0.3 is _not_ needed in the last > part? > > I tried another test-file, which was not uploaded till now and incredible, > it got fantastic with this options, but it is slow now, 5fps with my > Dualcore 5050e. No question, it is worth the time, if it works as with this > very shaky new sample from a dark room. > > It's hard for me to understand, why some samples are stabilized and others > not. This is due to the fact that the stabilize algorithm is using small measurement fields that are placed on the frames. The river for example causes the illusion (for many local fields) that the camera is moving. Since this is not the same on all frames the stabilizing is not so well. A whole picture version is used with stabilize=algo=0. This is very slow and does only do translations and no rotations. > The ship-sample is better now. Probably this one belongs to the clips, > which are better not stabilized. The statues in the mountain are more > stable now, but there is a sharpness problem, the flowing river still is > more shaky than the original and with the 4th sample there is no big > difference with the original and the stabilized version. > > I have another important question: > > Kdenlive has a preset for 768x576 non-interlaced only, the original is > 720x576 or 704x576 interlaced. What do I have to do to get 768x576 as > result? Mh, maybe just adding again a black border to it? Doesn;t Kdenlive do that? Otherwise I know that ffmpeg can do that nicely. > > When and where to do I add filters for denoising and sharpening? The > quality is always similar to the files you have. S-VHS tapes need not to be > denoised, but a little bit sharpened. > > Which options do you recommend? > > Without stabilizing I use this sharpening options as last filter: > > -J unsharp=luma=0.8:luma_matrix=7x5:chroma=0.1:chroma_matrix=3x3 This you can add to the transform call simply as -J transform=.....,unsharp=luma=0.8:luma_matrix=7x5:chroma=0.1:chroma_matrix=3x3 > > Al
-- ---- Georg Martius, Tel: +49 177 6413311 ----- ------- http://www.flexman.homeip.net ----------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
