Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello
FrameRateConverter is generally better than InterFrame.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danette
Then I'll have to change.
|
Just so the OP understands, both FrameRateConverter and InterFrame use the code and/or the algorithms from MVTools2. FrameRateConverter attempts to reduce artifacts via masking. InterFrame doesn't really add anything to the quality of the motion estimation and instead was created to provide real-time, GPU-assisted motion estimation so you can change 24p to 60p and get the "soap opera effect" while watching movies, without having to encode offline. InterFrame was optimized for that one task and is quite limited and doesn't attempt to do all the other things that you can do with MVTools2 (like noise reduction).
So, while I certainly agree that the quality produced by FrameRateConverter is better than Interframe, I am not at all certain that it produces better quality than simply using MVTools2 itself. I participated quite a bit in the thread which led to the development of FrameRateConverter, and much of my work with MVTools2 was used as a sort of benchmark against which FrameRateConverter was measured. It definitely did produce good results in some cases, but also failed to produce any improvement in others, and occasionally produced worse output.
So, bottom line, I don't know if you'll see much improvement by changing, but by all means, if you have the time, try it out.