[FFmpeg-user] ffmpeg architecture question

Mark Filipak markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 22:32:00 EEST 2020

On 04/18/2020 01:01 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Am Sa., 18. Apr. 2020 um 00:53 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
> <markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg at gmail.com>:
>> I'm not using the 46 telecine anymore because you introduced me to 'pp=linblenddeint'
>> -- thanks again! -- which allowed me to decomb via the 55 telecine.
> Why do you think that pp is a better de-interlacer than yadif?
> (On hardware younger that's not more than ten years old.)
> Carl Eugen

The subjects of prior threads are getting mixed in with this thread, "ffmepg architecture question".

The architecture question is about recursion/non-recursion of filter complexes.

The prior threads were about how to decomb a telecine in general and a 55-telecine in particular. 
Oh, well. It's my fault. I shouldn't have cranked one Jack-in-the-box before closing the previous 

Regarding deinterlace, Carl Eugen, I'm not trying to deinterlace. The transcode source is 
progressive video (p24), not interlace video (i30-telecast or 125-telecast).

I'm performing p24-to-p60 transcode via 55 pull-down telecine. The result has 1 combed frame in 
every set of 5 frames (P P C P P). I'm trying to decomb those combed frames.

'pp' seems to do a better job of decombing because it has a procedure, 'pp=linblenddeint', that 
seems to do a better job of mixing the combed fields. 'yadif' seems to be optimized solely for 

To be clear: I will never be processing telecast sources and will never be deinterlacing.

Thank you all for being patient.


More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list