exist any filter specially done for (deinterlace) flicker

[Didée]

Ah, didn't think of the obvious, now I see. Yes, that should be possible, and rather easy to do. Will be tried out somewhen soon, to see how it turns out.

[Terka]

thank you for replies. dont understand the last sentece. you or someone tried this already?

[Terka]

2 Didée:
1.tried to do the separate_fields - > weave, but im not able to implement it directly to Tempgauss (Tempgauss_beta1mod to be precise)
could you help?
2. tried fluxsmoothT to calm bob's flickering, looks good in static areas.
3.can we get some profit if temporalsoften be used as mo-comped?
for clean soures is TG realy good, (my) DV sources have much more noise which is difficult for me to beat.

[sarmano]

# apply sharpness limiting (SLmode 3|4), or has "draft" been requested?
stage3 = (draft==2) ? t .Subtitle("Draft 2") : (draft==1) ? t1 .Subtitle("Draft 1")
\ : (SLmode==3) ? ( (SLrad<2) ? stage2.repair(edi,1) : stage2.repair(stage2.repair(edi,12),1) )
\ : (SLmode==4) ? stage2.mt_clamp(pmax,pmin,Sovs,Sovs,U=3,V=3)
\ : stage2

stage3

How it's working? I don't understand.
When it's removed TGMC works perfectly on 10x speed without strong sharpness limit.

[Didée]

"You shall not alter complex scripts when you don't know what you're doing."

Quick test:
TGMC with default sharpness limiting (SLmode=2): ~6.6 fps
TGMC with all sharpness limiting deactivated (SLmode=0): ~6.4 fps

If you comment-out (or remove) exactly the code sniplet that you posted, then TGMC will return just the input clip, without any processing, without any deinterlacing.

So - yes, doing *nothing* is a very fast operation, indeed.

[sarmano]

Originally Posted by Didée

"You shall not alter complex scripts when you don't know what you're doing."

So - yes, doing *nothing* is a very fast operation, indeed.

Hmm. I tried encode 720p video clip without using TMGC and speed was ~8fps but with removed iterations from TMGC it's encoding about 1.2 fps. So - no, doing *something* isn't a very fast operation .

I really don't understand the step on stage3 and how many passes it'll do.

BTW: Thanx for answer anyway.
(Sorry for my English!)

[WorBry]

Originally Posted by Didée

So - yes, doing *nothing* is a very fast operation, indeed.

Love it

[Didée]

Originally Posted by sarmano

Hmm. I tried encode 720p video clip without using TMGC and speed was ~8fps but with removed iterations from TMGC it's encoding about 1.2 fps.

720p is progressive. You are using a deinterlacer on a progressive clip ... ?

I really don't understand the step on stage3 and how many passes it'll do.

That "stage3" section does not do something like several passes or "iterations". It's a basic IF..THEN..ELSEIF... condition.
Then, with default settings of TGMC, that section does *nothing*, anyway. With the default setting of (SLmode=2), the sharpness limiting is done earlier in the script (section "stage1b"). For that reason, your change wouldn't make much sense: you are removing a section that does no processing at all (with default parameter, that is).


Also, the code in TGMC is slightly different from the code you quoted (border/crop is missing). Due to those differences, it is not fully clear what exactly you removed, and what exactly is happening in your modified script.
If you want all doubts dispeled, post the complete version of your modified script.

In any case - if you get a 10-fold speedup, then it is impossible that TGMC still does what it's supposed to do.

[sarmano]

Didée many thanks for the explanation of the script.
The purpose of the removal step 3 was my desire to speed up the script a bit by removing unnecessary options as well.
I need some time to understand where I made an error in adjusting the data. Perhaps part of the code slows down the processing of data and I have the impression of useless steps.

720p is progressive. You are using a deinterlacer on a progressive clip ... ?

Yes, I used a resized progressive clip.After several tests, I noticed that NNEDI or EEDI2 does an image more elegant, as compared with the original material, even in small amounts.
Of course, this is not quite correctly associated with the technology of processing, but I really like the result of these actions.

[Terka]

Didée, could you help with the separate_fields - > weave, TGMC hack?
Thank you,
Terka

[Terka]

or someone else? Asked Didee, because he is the author.

[martinfrombern]

i get this strange artifact when using TempGaussMC_beta1mod(edimode="NNEDI"). source is pal dvd. screenshots (thumbnails):

[Didée]

@ martinfrombern
Those are artifacts from failed motion compensation that hasn't been detected as being faulty. You might try using more aggressive repair options, such as TGMC(edimode="NNEDI", rep0=1,rep1=1,rep2=1).
The defaults for rep0/1/2 are 4/0/4. The smaller a number is, the more aggressive the corresponding repair section is acting (and "0" deactivates a given repair section).
However, the more aggressive you choose the repair values, the more likely it is you'll get bob-flicker in static scenes.


@ Terka
While the basic idea is pretty simple to do, it turns out that it's a bit cumbersome to implement into TGMC in such a way that everything still works as it should.

Meanwhile, to cool down your eagerness a little, let's make an estimate:
Say, TGMC is spending ~20% of its procesing time with the motion search. Your suggestion will cut down the time for motion search by ~50%. So in the end, your suggestion would bring ~10% speed increase with slightly reduced quality. (Those are rough numbers from the guts, but fairly realistic.)

See why I'm not overly thrilled to make those changes? Sure, every little bit helps, but ... boosting a 3.0 fps script up to 3.3 fps isn't very spectacular.

[Terka]

Didée, of course, the speed gain wont be big.
I wanted to try it myself, but im not able.
btw. didnot understand
"Will be tried out somewhen soon, to see how it turns out."
thank you, T.

[Sagekilla]

Meanwhile, to cool down your eagerness a little, let's make an estimate:
Say, TGMC is spending ~20% of its procesing time with the motion search. Your suggestion will cut down the time for motion search by ~50%. So in the end, your suggestion would bring ~10% speed increase with slightly reduced quality. (Those are rough numbers from the guts, but fairly realistic.)

This reminds me of Amdahl's law. Even if you speed up one part of a program by an infinite amount, your program can still be very slow.

[lansing]

I kept getting an integer overflow error from the script after an install of windows 7.

I did a clean install of avisynth, some trial and error for all the required plugins. And the error message is still the same:

t1 = t.VCRep(dbob,ed=ed0,od=od0) #line 144
tD_2   = mt_makediff(ref,clp,U=3,V=3) #line 272

I think the problem comes from masktools, but I don't know what to do about it

[Undead Sega]

i dont mean to sound rude or anything, but is TempGaussMC considered to be 'the' Motion Compensation deinterlacer?

or what Motion Compensation is suppose to be? because there are probably hundreds of different MC's out there, which one do we know is the (works) better and etc.

[Adub]

Typically, the choices between motion compensated deinterlacers lies between MCBob and TempGaussMC. The latter has a nice effect in that it also filters noise, but you can't go wrong with either of these deinterlacers. Just pick the one that works best for your purposes.

[2Bdecided]

There are two mcbob versions - the eedi2 one, and the nnedi one. Horses for courses.

There are multiple tgmc versions - I still like alpha3 for my HDV footage.

tgmc beta1 and 2 give you lots of options - eedi2 or nnedi etc etc etc - there's a post a few pages back that summarises it. These can run faster than alpha3.


IMO(!) visible differences include:

• how successfully shallow diagonals are recovered without flicker (tgmc better than mcbob)
• how well noise and artefacts are suppressed (tgmc better than mcbob)
• how well very fine details are preserved (tgmc beta default seems better than tgmc alpha 3; mcbob seems better too, but less stable)

I often compare the deinterlaced output with what you see on a native interlaced CRT. IMO tgmc can be better almost all the time; mcbob can be better most of the time, but most other oft recommended AVIsynth deinterlacers fail miserably to maintain the full perceived resolution. But mcbob and tgmc are too slow!

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

[Terka]

another speedup possible?
http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-22096.html