BarneyDmedia Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Canon 7D at 2000 fps I know this was done with Twixtor, but I'm wondering if anyone has tried something similar with either After Effects built in frame blending or some other "free" solution. For those unfamiliar, it's a 7D shooting 60 fps time remapped to about 2000fps using Twixtor's frame blending to smooth it out. It looks like something shot on a phantom flex, but about $90,000 cheaper camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Howell Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 That's a really interesting clip, from what I can tell the layer of rain in the foreground (on the shots where everything slows right down)seems to have been generated elsewhere and composited on top. It looks really nice and seamless and provides a simple work-around for something that Twixtor normally has problems with. Back on topic; Twixtor seems to give me considerably better results than After Effects built in frame blending. The later seems to take an awful lot of tweaking to get passable results where as Twixtor is pretty simple to use and dose a fairly decent job (as long your being realistic about what you can achieve with it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 10, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 10, 2012 To be honest it looks nothing like 2000 fps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 10, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 10, 2012 Optical flow interpolation works very well on certain subjects. It certainly wouldn't have worked well on the raindrops; they are composited (and there's far more rain in the slow stuff than there was in the normal stuff!) This is just the built in AE, and works pretty well, but then it's a very easy subject: http://vimeo.com/8574526 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob spence Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Stephen, I don't think you're being too generous there....it's shot on a $1,000 camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 More like about 50-75, I'd say. Come to think of it, I shot some Super-8 years ago at 36. A little faster than that, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now