[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter: add BobWeaver deinterlacing filter

[Paul B Mahol]

On 2/16/16, Thomas Mundt <loudmax-at-yahoo.de at ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>>> Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> schrieb am Di, 16.2.2016:
>>>>> On 2/8/16, Thomas Mundt <loudmax-at-yahoo.de at ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 8.2.2016:
>>>> How does the speed compare to YADIF?
>>>> Or in other words, is it usable in real-time, or rather designed for
>>>> offline processing?
>>>>
>>> YADIF is quicker, because of its CPU optimizations. Without CPU
>>> optimizations BobWeaver is quicker.
>>> It should definitely be usable in real-time.
>>
>> Could you provide samples when this filters gives better output than
>> yadif/w3fdif ?
>
> I've uploaded some samples for comparison:
>
> http://free-vsts.com/files/bwdif_w3fdif_yadif.zip
>
> I used the same command for all competitors:
> ffmpeg -i xxx_orig.mp4 -vf DEINTERLACER -r 50 -aspect 16:9 -vcodec libx264
> -crf 18 out.mp4
> bwdif  DEINTERLACER: bwdif
> yadif  DEINTERLACER: yadif=1
> w3fdif DEINTERLACER: w3fdif=filter=complex
>
> For comparison of moving interlaced scenes I've uploaded the sample
> parkjoy(pj).
> This is difficult for deinterlacers and doesn't look very good with all
> competitors. Yadif makes kind of a watercolor effect. W3fdif is much closer
> to the original progressive parkjoy source file. BobWeaver is very close to
> w3fdif, but shows less artefacts especially in moving front trees.
>
> For comparison of still interlaced scenes I've uploaded the samples kiosk
> and bars.
> Here w3fdif shows jigging because of its absent still pixel detection. Yadif
> and BobWeaver are fine. With sample bars only BobWeaver shows the correct 3
> white lines in the timecode. I don't have original progressive versions of
> kiosk and bars, since this is broadcast content.

If nobody plans to comment on code I will apply this soon.