[MPlayer-users] Re: [-] Re: [-] Best de-interlace filter ( NOVIRUS )

[Matthias Wieser]

Am Sonntag, 10. Oktober 2004 02:29 schrieb D Richard Felker III:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:21:19PM +0200, Matthias Wieser wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2004 01:39 schrieb D Richard Felker III:
> > >
> > > i would go so far as to say there's no such thing as a high quality
> > > deinterlacer. interlacing sucks, and deinterlacing sucks just as
> > > much...
> >
> > Dscaler and TV-Time do have some high quality deinterlacers.
>
> i wouldn't call them high quality. your eyes just compensate because
> of the high refresh rate (50/60 fps).

You can configure TVtime and Dscaler to give 25/30 fps.

> but if you encode the output of 
> these it'll take insane bitrate because of the high frequency flicker
> your eyes cover up. so from my standpoint it's very low quality.

??

I don't see how a deinterlace filter like

if pixel needs deinterlacing {
	deinterlace 
	make nice edges
} else {
	do nothing
}

has to produce flicker.


> > pp=md lacks a good smothing algorithm
>
> then apply a blur filter afterwards.

That would blur the whole frame. I thought the advantage of the md filter 
was that it only deinterlaes where necessary.

> anyway this isn't it's most 
> serious fault. the main problem with md is that it destroys all local
> extrema in the picture.

That's true - at least for extrema only one pixel high. But I have never 
seen this effect. So I would say it's a minor problem. The most visible 
problem is the staircase effect on edges. 


> > pp=kerndeint is to noise sensitive
>
> yeah imo it's very bad.

Hm, why?
The only problem I have seen is that it sometimes deinterlaces to much 
because it sees nois as interlacing.

> > pp=lb blurs the image and does deinterlace everywhere
>
> lb blurs two consecutive fields together so you don't lose either of
> them entirely.

-vf boxblur won't make you lose a frame entirely, too ;-)

     Matthias