[x264-devel] interlace

[Purvin Pandit]

> From: darkshikari at gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:13:29 -0700
> To: x264-devel at videolan.org
> Subject: Re: [x264-devel] interlace
> 
> > Thanks. Was there a reason x264 did not add support for field coding (or
> > even PAFF) and preferred field MB coding instead? Is there any plan to add
> > support for field coding? Are there any performance comparison of field
> > coding versus field MB only that someone can point me to?
> 
> Non-adaptive MBAFF was easier to implement and required less code than
> field coding.
> 
> Furthermore, it naturally leads into adaptive MBAFF, which is superior
> to PAFF in most cases.

Thanks. Is there a plan to support adaptive MBAFF in the near future? 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/attachments/20100526/f0a2393e/attachment-0001.htm>