[x264-devel] PAFF

[Fernando Pescador]

Hi Mike,
Our problem is that we are using an IP STB that have problems if we use 
progressive frames (the problem is something similar to a shadows around the 
figures). This problem dispear if we use PAFF to encoding the frames (we 
have a HW encoder that support PAFF but not MBAFF). In other hand, if we use 
MBAFF (x264 MBAFF implementation for example) the quality of the pictures is 
lower than if we use PAFF.
We know that the problem is in the IP STB (other STB work fine with 
processive and MBAFF sequences) but there are not technical information 
about the STB and it is not possible to update the firmware.

We have test a lot of IP STBs and STBs-T (pe ADB i3800T o ClarkeTech  5000) 
and some times we see the same effect with progressive frames but never with 
PAFF interlaced frames.

So we want to implement PAFF in order to use these STBs.
Thanks in advance
Fernando



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Kazmier" <mkazmier at yahoo.com>
To: "Mailing list for x264 developers" <x264-devel at videolan.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [x264-devel] PAFF


> Hi Fernando,
>
>> Dark_Shikari wrote: What would be more useful than PAFF, I think, would 
>> be to have
>> proper MBAFF support.
>
> I agree - most testing has show that properly structured MBAFF decisions 
> will yield more efficient compression than PAFF, most choose PAFF due to 
> the lower complexity to implement it (a single heuristic is needed per 
> frame, not per macroblock pair).  Is there any reason you want PAFF 
> support versus MBAFF?
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster 
> Total Access, No Cost.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
> _______________________________________________
> x264-devel mailing list
> x264-devel at videolan.org
> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x264-devel