Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
3rd June 2009, 13:28 | #241 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,391
|
No.
TemporalSoften is, roughly, 100 times faster than TGMC as a whole. Even if temporalsoften2 (very old & outdated, wasn't it designed for Avisynth 2.0, IIRC?) would be some percent faster, it wouldn't matter. Some percent from one percent is ... practically null. BTW, somewhen lately I made I rough implementation (only POC, not *generally* functional, hence not posted yet) of your faster ME proposal, which also included the transition from MVTools v1.9.x (original TGMC) to the actual MVTools v2.4.x. What I observed was that there's a small speed improvement of "fast-ME" vs. the original "full-ME", but ... somehow, even with "fast-ME", the new MVTools-v2 version was slower than the original MVTools-v1 version ... It seems a bit ridiculous to put effort into micro-improvements on the script level, when the hosting environment/tools get slower on a macro level ...
__________________
- We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood - My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!) |
3rd June 2009, 15:06 | #242 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: cz
Posts: 704
|
yes, i know that the improvement is low.
1.what is the most time consumer in TG? mvtools time could be halved, bob instead of nnedi/edi can be used. 2.so mvtools2 are slower than mvtools1? and what about quality? 3. im using TGMC on DV sources. unfortunately DV has quite big artefacts, so some appear more visible when TGMC calms most of the picture. but TGMC is far best deinterlacer. |
12th June 2009, 15:35 | #246 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: cz
Posts: 704
|
how modify TGMC to
use more frames in MVDegrain? when used filtering like see below on DV source, result is more stable. But im sure Didee knows why he put the other routines to TGMC. Quote:
|
|
14th June 2009, 21:33 | #247 | Link |
Huh?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 3,103
|
TGMC's latest version is TempGaussMC_beta1, right?
__________________
Read Decomb's readmes and tutorials, the IVTC tutorial and the capture guide in order to learn about combing and how to deal with it. |
15th June 2009, 19:37 | #249 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 1,197
|
TempGaussMC_beta1 is the latest/last official release from the author, Didee. There's a modded version TempGaussMC_beta1mod (courstesy of thetoof) that uses the multi-threaded branch of MVtools or MVTools2.
http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/TempGaussMC Probably both versions can be updated to include NNEDI2, just released: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...28#post1296128 Easy enough to do: Code:
# Create spatially interpolated bob-clips dbob = clp.bob(0,0.5) edi = (EdiMode=="NNEDI") ? clp.nnedi(field=-2) \ : (EdiMode=="NNEDI2")? clp.nnedi2(field=-2) \ : (EdiMode=="EEDI2") ? clp.SeparateFields().EEDI2(field=-2, maxd=EEDI2maxd) \ : (EdiMode=="Yadif") ? clp.Yadif(mode=1) \ : dbob
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be Last edited by WorBry; 15th June 2009 at 19:54. |
22nd June 2009, 05:58 | #250 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 889
|
I love this function. It works even on those ill-brained footage with mixed interlaced and field-duplicated materials (....though I seem to find ghosting on those field-duplicated scenes.... very occasionally.... It may actually exist in the footage itself... not 100% sure).
|
29th June 2009, 03:27 | #251 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 713
|
Quote:
as i mentioned before in my previous post, is TempGaussMC 'the' motion compensation technique? i say this because, if i am correct, there are many different techniques that motion compensation has? like on the way it searches pixels and data? |
|
29th June 2009, 13:32 | #253 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 713
|
Quote:
anyways, anyone may i ask? |
|
29th June 2009, 14:50 | #254 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,391
|
If you expect an "A is better than B, period." answer, then stop reading NOW.
MCBob Pro: - "lossless" bobbing, in the sense that the original fields' scanlines remain absolutely unchanged. Con: - result is less stable & less compressible than TGMC, i.e. MCBob has more residual bob shimmer in the output. - instead of field(x)<-->field(x+1) motion compensation, it uses field(x-1)-->(x)<--field(x+1) motion interpolation. Motion interpolation is (much) more prone to fail. - uses static masking for reckognition of no-motion areas. Though that's good for (really) static areas, there's always the danger that repetitive motion is misjudged. (Sidenote: MCBob's Shape Transposition Technology is a failed concept..!) TGMC: Pro: - result is more stable & more compressible, residual bob shimmer is (most likely) the most minimal you'll get from any existing bob- or deinterlacing filter for Avisynth. - uses motion compensation, which is less likely to fail. Con: - TGMC is not lossless, i.e. the original fields' scanlines are altered. (*technically* that's a cutback, but it helps to improve the *visual* quality) Pro AND Con: - doesn't use any kind of static-masking. (Pro: since not used, it can not fail.) (Con: Slightly artificial resolution in perfectly-static areas) ___ In direct comparison of "how much effort" it takes for "what kind of result", I'd say that MCBob is overly expensive. Personally, in most circumstances I prefer TGMC.
__________________
- We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood - My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!) |
30th June 2009, 18:13 | #255 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6
|
I can't understand this complex script and it's way for deflickering. Can it be made usefull for deflickering without deinterlacing(bobing) on progressive frames (from DVD)? And will it be better than simple script like this so called Stab().
|
30th June 2009, 21:27 | #256 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16
|
What if we combine MCBob and TempGaussMC? I mean using MCBob as the initial bobber for TemGauss instead of NNEDI or yadif.
Do we get the best from both worlds and get a better result or do we get the worst from both worlds? I have made a try and to my eyes teh result looks better but I would like to know the experts opinion. |
30th June 2009, 21:57 | #257 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 12
|
Wouldn’t that be slow as hell?
__________________
Best people are not angels quite:
While—not the worst of people’s doings scare The devil; so there’s that proud look to spare! Robert Browning: Pippa Passes |
1st July 2009, 07:25 | #260 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16
|
I tested it on a video wich still had some noticeable flicker after TempGaussMC and, although it was still not perfect, almost all the flicker had dissapeared.
I also noticed that in some frames where MCBob had better results than TempGaussMC, the new result was closer to MCBob's. |
Tags |
deinterlace, flickering |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|