I'm looking for some input on the differences between NNEDI3 and EDI3 when using QTGMC, how different they are, if one provides better quality etc. I've noticed that QTGMC defaults to NNEDI3, but the results of EDI3 seem a bit more accurate. I've found out that NNEDI3 "(...) is an intra-field only deinterlacer. It takes in a frame, throws away one field, and then interpolates the missing pixels using only information from the kept field." according to the avisynth wiki, but I cannot found more information about EDI3's inner workings.
Here is the example that made me question NNEDI3's effectiveness:
[Attachment 50211 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50212 - Click to enlarge]
By the way, the wiki suggests that the correct value for EdiMode is "EEDI3" and not "EDI3" but the former is not recognized (There is no function named 'EEDI3'.)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Alright turns out I did not have EEDI3 installed and when you supply any unrecognized string to QTGMC for EdiMode, it just *silently* defaults to Bob... So now I can finally compare EEDI3 (the real one) to NNEDI3. However the results are very similar. Any input on their differences would be most welcome.
EEDI3 is also an intra-field only deinterlacer
Pros and cons .
When used with QTGMC-
EEDI3 tends to do better with horizontal lines , but issues with vertical and more detail loss/smoothing, more artifacting in general too.
NNEDI3 is probably more balanced overall and faster . But horizontal lines tend to be not as clean