Avisynth Bob Alterntive which is just as fast

[MrBiggles]

I'm looking for a better quality alternative to Bob() which is just as fast or faster. Any suggestions?

[poisondeathray]

Nothing is faster than bob(), there is no interpolation, it's essentially a plain field resize . You're more limited by your source filter FPS, than the effect of the filter FPS

Yadif would probably be the next fastest, it's only slightly slower

[Brad]

LeakKernelBob is considerably faster than Yadif, at least on this machine. "Higher quality than Bob()" is a pretty low threshold, so some of the other old filters that were designed in the era of slower CPUs and lower video standards could be even faster. I've only used these and filters on that list that I know to be slower, personally.

[poisondeathray]

I think he's running in mt mode - yadif in mode=1 (bob) is about as fast as bob() , easily over 1000 FPS on SD content when measuring by avsmeter (not adding the effect of encoding), maybe a few fps slower only . You're essentially limited by the source filter .

Those "fast" filters are a non issue. It's the quality that is the problem like you said

[MrBiggles]

I'm running non-MT with a 4.2Ghz 8 core CPU. I'm downscaling 1080i to 720p 50fps. I get around 49fps with Yadif for each video when encoding two videos at once. Bob gives 67fps for each video.

Is there a reason why I should use Yadif instead of Bob? This is good quality HD footage and I can't see the difference in quality between Bob and Yadif. What artifacts does Bob give?

[newpball]

This is good quality HD footage .....

Correction, it was good quality HD footage.

Apart from decimating the resolution you can't seriously call bob deinterlacing quality now can you?

[poisondeathray]

Is there a reason why I should use Yadif instead of Bob? This is good quality HD footage and I can't see the difference in quality between Bob and Yadif. What artifacts does Bob give?

They both give artifacts, just different types. Mostly aliasing/jaggy edges (stair stepping) . Thin edges will tend to "buzz" when you watch in motion. The deinterlacing artifacts are reduced somewhat when you downscale.

Bob doesn't account for the even/odd field offset, so picture will go up/down slightly

[MrBiggles]

Bob doesn't account for the even/odd field offset, so picture will go up/down slightly

Can you simply what that means?

Does anyone have any screenshot comparisons so I can see the artifact differences between Bob, Yadif and QTGMC?

[Brad]

I don't think anyone can simplify further than "picture will go up/down slightly".

As for artifacts, seek to an image with thin lines and remove your downscale filter (i.e. view at 1080p). The twitter should be obvious.

[jagabo]

Bob doesn't account for the even/odd field offset, so picture will go up/down slightly

Can you simply what that means?

I posted a small sample here (slowed down):
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/355535-Need-help-understanding-frame-rates-and-Bob-...=1#post2237268
That's very similar to what is seen on an interlaced CRT.

Does anyone have any screenshot comparisons so I can see the artifact differences between Bob, Yadif and QTGMC?

You would need to see a lot of different examples as different artifacts show up with different material. Here's a few:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/292642-Deinterlacing-Tips-and-Good-news-that-i-foun...=1#post1784755
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/295672-A-problem-for-video-experts?p=1809662&viewfu...=1#post1809662

Bob is similar to "discard and resize". QTGMC() is similar to TempGaussMC_beta1(), it's predecessor.

[hello_hello]

Correction, it was good quality HD footage.

Apart from decimating the resolution you can't seriously call bob deinterlacing quality now can you?

You really need to give it a rest. It's monumentally tedious now.
When you asked your question about resizing 4k to 1080p, were you hoping to have the thread sidetracked by posters offering opinions on the evils of downscaling, or did you have your own reasons for wanting to resize and hoped to simply have your question answered?

[newpball]

Correction, it was good quality HD footage.

Apart from decimating the resolution you can't seriously call bob deinterlacing quality now can you?

You really need to give it a rest. It's monumentally tedious now.

You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.

It is clear you and I stand very far apart on what consists of quality. What is new that you now feel entitled to call other members to give things a rest. Did not know you were the moderator on this forum setting policy against people who are more quality conscious than you are.

In my opinion doing bob deinterlacing is doing a shoddy deinterlacing job. I would not even call it deinterlacing it is simply bad line doubling.

[hello_hello]

Does anyone have any screenshot comparisons so I can see the artifact differences between Bob, Yadif and QTGMC?

There's some small QTGMC vs Yadif sample encodes attached to this post. Also de-interlacing to 25fps progressive vs 50fps progressive for each (PAL). They're only standard definition, but the difference is obvious. A couple more attached to this post.


And here's newpball wanting to argue about it as he does time and time again.
And here he is returning after looking at the samples I linked to offering a constructive opinion on quality with logical reasons for claiming they don't look better than the original DVD video. Oh sorry.... there's never a link for that one.....

[hello_hello]

You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.

Although as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your right to be taken seriously by selectively debating topics and ignoring anything that doesn't suit you.

It is clear you and I stand very far apart on what consists of quality.

Actually, we probably don't, but I don't judge the quality of an encode by looking at the bitrate. I don't make silly assumptions about the amount of picture detail based solely on the resolution, and I don't post ridiculous generalisations about turning video into a cartoon if someone dares to enable a noise filter.
I doubt our view on quality is all that different, but I try to decide by using my eyes rather than preconceived opinion.

What is new that you now feel entitled to call other members to give things a rest. Did not know you were the moderator on this forum setting policy against people who are more quality conscious that you are.

What's new is I didn't refrain from saying what many other posters have already said, only without resorting to the troll word.

Yesterday someone asked about AAC encoders and bitrate and your contribution to the thread was some silly pictures of flowers and an off-topic comment about audio quality. We discuss browser versions and that's a newpball opportunity to rant about being left behind and blaming the CIA or whatever that nonsense was.
No, I'm not the quality police. It wasn't me who referred to it as being "like teaching a pig to sing" when others don't agree with my strict policy on quality.

In my opinion doing bob deinterlacing is doing a shoddy deinterlacing job. I would not even call it deinterlacing it is simply bad line doubling.

They OP started the thread with a post which began with the sentence "I'm looking for a better quality alternative to Bob()....."
Did you really think a derogatory comment about resizing followed by a derogatory comment about bob de-interlacing would help him understand he's asking the wrong question, and he should be asking about about better quality de-interlacing....... oh.... wait a minute......

[newpball]

Actually, we probably don't, ....

I am certain we do!

Next we are going to hear that quality comes first for you.

[hello_hello]

I am certain we do!

That's because you refuse to pull your head out of the sand and ignore anything that doesn't suit you.