Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavino
1. Would there be any advantage (or disadvantage) in doing the Blur before the resize?
2. Given you have to vertically blur the results, is there in fact any point in using (Q)TGMC for deinterlacing just in order to do an re-interlaced downsize? Would an 'inferior' but faster deinterlacer give equally good results, or do you still gain something from the temporal processing of (Q)TGMC?
|
I'd be interested in knowing 'expert' the answers to these questions too. I suspect with 1, it might be a lot slower but I'm not sure of the gain.
Also interestingly, this much faster Brute-Force approach doesn't suffer from the QTGMC jaggies and looks "reasonable".
I really should compare the QTGMC-blur with this brute-force, side by side...
Code:
# BRUTE-FORCE PURE VERSION PER http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1185790#post1185790
Global NewHeight=576
Global NewWidth=720
SeparateFields()
Shift = (GetParity() ? -0.25 : 0.25) * (Height()/Float(NewHeight/2)-1.0)
E = SelectEven().Spline36resize(NewWidth, NewHeight/2, 0, Shift)
O = SelectOdd( ).Spline36resize(NewWidth, NewHeight/2, 0, -Shift)
Ec = SelectEven().Spline36Resize(NewWidth, NewHeight/2, 0, 2*Shift)
Oc = SelectOdd( ).Spline36Resize(NewWidth, NewHeight/2, 0, -2*shift)
Interleave(E, O)
IsYV12() ? MergeChroma(Interleave(Ec, Oc)) : Last
Weave()
AssumeTFF()
edit: Compared with stackhorizontal and frame-by-frame - the QTGMC-noblur looks nicest and sharpest in places with no motion however in places of motion with lines it is striking in how the jaggies stand out. The QTGMC-blur and Brute-Force appear almost identical to most intents and purposes (relatively clean 1440x1080i source). So... in this instance with this type of source with the intent of an interlaced size reduction from HDi to SDi, I can attain circa 20x the speed by abandoning QTGMC and going brute-force. Obvious I suppose, but as a dummy I'd thought "yeah, I want quality, just knock it about with QTGMC to get a great deinterlaced image for size-reduction and reinterlacing".