| Message ID | CAB0OVGpo7BXMtd9QRhKAaKJB+DgsAr6es3NVPzRCzya5PL5iKw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [FFmpeg-devel,v4] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| andriy/ffmpeg-patchwork | success | Make fate finished |
On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > >> 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. > FYI Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will create a new entry for the patch. Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. Thanks,
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 03:30 Uhr schrieb Andriy Gelman <andriy.gelman@gmail.com>: > > On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > 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. > > FYI > Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when > an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. > > If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then > pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will create > a new entry for the patch. > Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. All revisions of the patch in this thread were picked up and processed by patchwork. (Sorry if I misunderstood your mail) Carl Eugen
On Sun, 05. Apr 10:34, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 03:30 Uhr schrieb Andriy Gelman > <andriy.gelman@gmail.com>: > > > > On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > 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. > > > > FYI > > Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when > > an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. > > > > If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then > > pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will create > > a new entry for the patch. > > Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. > > All revisions of the patch in this thread were picked up and processed > by patchwork. > (Sorry if I misunderstood your mail) I did this manually myself :) (i.e. removed "Re: " from subject line and reparsed the emails in patchwork)
Andriy Gelman: > On Sun, 05. Apr 10:34, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 03:30 Uhr schrieb Andriy Gelman >> <andriy.gelman@gmail.com>: >>> >>> On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>>> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> FYI >>> Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when >>> an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. >>> >>> If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then >>> pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will create >>> a new entry for the patch. >>> Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. > >> >> All revisions of the patch in this thread were picked up and processed >> by patchwork. >> (Sorry if I misunderstood your mail) > > I did this manually myself :) (i.e. removed "Re: " from subject line and > reparsed the emails in patchwork) > Thanks for all the work you put into patchwork, Andriy. Much appreciated. - Andreas
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > >> 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. > > Please comment, Carl Eugen Ping. Carl Eugen
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > >> 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. Carl Eugen
On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> > >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >> > > > >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> > > > > >> > > > >> 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. So revert it ASAP!
Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> > >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> > > > >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > >> > > > > >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> 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. > So revert it ASAP! What should be changed about it? Carl Eugen
On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> > >> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> > > >> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> 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. > > Carl Eugen > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> <onemda@gmail.com>: >>> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >>> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >>> >> > >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > >> 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!
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> <onemda@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> 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! If you feel the patch is wrong, then you should present technical arguments to that purpose. Otherwise, there was plenty time on the ML to review it, and you only commented after it was on the ML for over a week and commited, despite clearly knowing that it existed. - Hendrik
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > > On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> <onemda@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> 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? Or do you believe that progressive frames are marked interlaced? Or should other frames be marked as progressive? Carl Eugen
On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> 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. I thought you knew that interlacing destroys half of data. Telecine does not destroys data.
On 4/12/20, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> 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! > > If you feel the patch is wrong, then you should present technical > arguments to that purpose. Otherwise, there was plenty time on the ML > to review it, and you only commented after it was on the ML for over a > week and commited, despite clearly knowing that it existed. > I do not feel. I know that patch is incorrect. And already objected on IRC.
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> > >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> >>> > >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> 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. > 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
On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos >> >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> 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 > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020, at 15:00, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> You are very ignorant or very stupid or both.
Whatever the technical merit, please do not insult people.
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > >> >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> 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. Apparently yes because ... > Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > Telecine is not interlacing. ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand your argumentation, please elaborate. > >> 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). Happy Easter, Carl Eugen
On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >> >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> 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. > > Apparently yes because ... > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > your argumentation, please elaborate. > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that. Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. >> >> 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). > > Happy Easter, Carl Eugen > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > >> >> >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > >> >> >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> 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. > > > > Apparently yes because ... > > > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > > your argumentation, please elaborate. > > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that. There are cameras that output interlaced content, they do not destroy any data (the "missing" data never existed). I don't think your definition is ideal, a more useful definition is that the fields of one frame originate from different points in time. > Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. I was more thinking of encoders, they will be less confused with the patch. > >> >> 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
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 14:41, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com > >: > > > > On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 15:00 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol < > onemda@gmail.com>: > > >> > > >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > > >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: > > >> >> > > >> >> On 4/12/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > Am So., 12. Apr. 2020 um 10:38 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > > >> >> > <onemda@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol > > >> >> >> >> <onemda@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> >> <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen > Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > <jamrial@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl > Eugen > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Hoyos > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> 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. > > > > > > Apparently yes because ... > > > > > >> Interlaced frames are frames produced by interlacing. > > >> Telecine is not interlacing. > > > > > > ... to the best of my knowledge, the telecine process outputs > > > interlaced (and non-interlaced) frames, so I do not understand > > > your argumentation, please elaborate. > > > > Interlacing usually destroys half of data, telecine never does that. > > There are cameras that output interlaced content, they do not > destroy any data (the "missing" data never existed). > > I don't think your definition is ideal, a more useful definition is that > the fields of one frame originate from different points in time. > > > Claiming frames are interlaced will just confuse confused users more. > > I was more thinking of encoders, they will be less confused with the > patch. > > > >> >> 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). > You both seem to misunderstand, confusing the structure of the frame with the transport. Telecine is a method of taking progressive content (e.g film) and displaying it on an interlaced device (e.g CRT) By definition it converts progressive structured frames to interlaced transport. This means that all output frames are interlaced (otherwise a CRT would not be able to play it). It might so happen that some (or all) frames still retain a progressive structure but this is orthogonal to the conversion that has taken place. Regards, Kieran Kunhya
From cd2f7b4336c1d0b786ba613d525830ff152788a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 01:00:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced. --- libavfilter/vf_telecine.c | 8 ++++++++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldmatch | 10 +++++----- tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-pullup | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c index 62599a7a3a..ff8151dfc9 100644 --- a/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c +++ b/libavfilter/vf_telecine.c @@ -207,6 +207,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref) s->stride[i], (s->planeheight[i] - !s->first_field + 1) / 2); } + s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = 1; + s->frame[nout]->top_field_first = !s->first_field; nout++; len--; s->occupied = 0; @@ -220,6 +222,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref) inpicref->data[i], inpicref->linesize[i], s->stride[i], s->planeheight[i]); + s->frame[nout]->interlaced_frame = inpicref->interlaced_frame; + s->frame[nout]->top_field_first = inpicref->top_field_first; nout++; len -= 2; } @@ -236,6 +240,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref) for (i = 0; i < nout; i++) { AVFrame *frame = av_frame_clone(s->frame[i]); + int interlaced = frame->interlaced_frame; + int tff = frame->top_field_first; if (!frame) { av_frame_free(&inpicref); @@ -243,6 +249,8 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref) } av_frame_copy_props(frame, inpicref); + frame->interlaced_frame = interlaced; + frame->top_field_first = tff; frame->pts = ((s->start_time == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) ? 0 : s->start_time) + av_rescale(outlink->frame_count_in, s->ts_unit.num, s->ts_unit.den); -- 2.24.1