[FFmpeg-devel] [GSoC] Motion Interpolation

[Paul B Mahol]

On 8/19/16, Davinder Singh <ds.mudhar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:27 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/18/16, Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 8/18/16, Davinder Singh <ds.mudhar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:52 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> [...]
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> i tried to modify EPZS. i removed the early termination threshold which
>> >> skip some predictors :-/
>> >> new score:
>> >> $ tiny_psnr 60_source_2.yuv 60_bbb.yuv
>> >> stddev: 1.02 PSNR: 47.94 MAXDIFF: 186 bytes:476928000/474163200
>> >>
>> >> original epzs:
>> >> $ tiny_psnr 60_source_2.yuv 60_bbb.yuv
>> >> stddev: 1.07 PSNR: 47.51 MAXDIFF: 186 bytes:476928000/474163200
>> >>
>> >> epzs uses small diamond pattern. a new pattern could also help.
>> >>
>> >> Please post patch like last time.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> latest patch attached.
>> >>
>> >
>> > UMH ME is still somehow buggy.
>> >
>> > EPZS seems good, great work!
>>
>
> what epzs did that i couldn't be able to do with umh is, it fixed lot of
> artifacts that require bigger search window. if i increase search param
> with umh it increase the artifacts. same happen with esa.
> i guess umh uses less predictors but a better search pattern. if we combine
> both epzs and uhm, it should increase the quality further.
>
>
>> Actually after second look EPZS is not much better than UMH here.
>>

720p parkjoy sample looks fine with EPZS it seems.

>
> please give me link to the video that you tested.

http://samples.ffmpeg.org/benchmark/testsuite1/matrixbench_mpeg2.mpg

Too much dark scenes.