On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <[email protected]>: >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> > <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> > <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> >> > <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> >>> >> > > <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos >> >> >>> >> > > > > <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> 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 > [email protected] > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list [email protected] https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
