<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br><br>> From: darkshikari@gmail.com<br>> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:13:29 -0700<br>> To: x264-devel@videolan.org<br>> Subject: Re: [x264-devel] interlace<br>> <br>> > Thanks. Was there a reason x264 did not add support for field coding (or<br>> > even PAFF) and preferred field MB coding instead? Is there any plan to add<br>> > support for field coding? Are there any performance comparison of field<br>> > coding versus field MB only that someone can point me to?<br>> <br>> Non-adaptive MBAFF was easier to implement and required less code than<br>> field coding.<br>> <br>> Furthermore, it naturally leads into adaptive MBAFF, which is superior<br>> to PAFF in most cases.<br><div><br></div><div>Thanks. Is there a plan to support adaptive MBAFF in the near future?</div> <br /><hr />Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. <a href='http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2' target='_new'>See how.</a></body>
</html>