Mind Blowing Slow Motion!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2022
- Mind Blowing Slow Motion!
This tutorial introduces you to Flowframes - Fast Video Interpolation for any GPU. It also compares the results to Adobe's Optical Flow.
More info and download here:
nmkd.itch.io/flowframes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
QUESTIONS?
► videorevealed.com/contact
Visit NVIDIA RTX Studio
► www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-v...
Check out BELECO photo backgrounds
► www.amazon.com/s?k=BELECO
Artlist Music
bit.ly/vidrevartlist
Artgrid Stock Video
bit.ly/vidrevartgrid
Motion Array
bit.ly/vidrevmotionarray
FXhome
bit.ly/vidrfevfxhome
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THANKS!
😃 To all the wonderful people who have supported VideoRevealed 😃 - Навчання та стиль
Thank you so much, this is a lifesaver !!! Even for speeding up 3D renders (rendering every other frame instead) good for deadlines !
Thanks for making these videos Colin, I do appreciate it.
Glad you like them!
Always a pleasure
Thanks so much. .
Thanks for this, I didn’t even try optical flow so now my options have got better! Cheers
You're welcome.
Thanks for the tip about this program, great tip and I would never have found it without your video. !
Jerry
Glad to help
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your support.
👍Excellent video.. and loved your explanation.. that makes beginners like me to fully understand. Oh i downloaded the FREE version.. and its fantastic and easy. Could u do more videos on Ai softwares that can RUN on PC.
Great results. Does it handle scene cuts better than optical flow, or are those still messy?
It's too bad this isn't inline in Premiere though, because I have a strange process for turning 60fps footage into 24fps with realistic simulated camera shutter motion blur:
Sequence 1: Optical flow 60fps to 240fps
Sequence 2: frame blend 240fps to 48fps
Sequence 3: Frame sample 48fps to 24fps
Then render sequence 3. This creates a simulated 180 degree shutter by blending 5 interpolated frames together, and then skipping the next 5. An even better effect can be done by increasing the optical flow to 480fps, giving 10 frames of simulated motion blur per outputted frame.
So handling the frame interpolation at the same time as the frame blending and frame sampling while encoding is extremely helpful, time wise, and it also results in less potential degradation from compression of course.
There is an option to recognize scene cuts.
Tried it, works fantastic, better slowmo I've done
Great to hear. I think this is technology we have to keep our eyes on.
Flowframes cant interpolate as many frames as you want, only 2x; 3x etc. Any way to solve that? Like I need 20% or 30% , more frames?
Pretty impressive how smooth it makes slow motion aye
It's incredible.
@@VideoRevealed completely agree. Game changer for my food channel aye
How does it compare to something like Topaz Video Enhance AI? It also does interpolation and they claim that their method is better than ordinary optical flow. Would be nice to get a side by side :)
I've never tried Topaz's solution as I'm too cheap. 😆
@@VideoRevealed haha 😂 Well, I think they have a 30 day free trial if you want to give it a try. I use it a lot for upscaling and it works well, but I can't say I've used it for interpolation enough times to have an opinion.
I feel like for upscaling it works better than Afeter Effect's Detail Preserving Upscale, but it is less practical. The way Adobe's products are linked to each other feels like magic at times.
Any PC recommendation for editings video/pics ?
Here's what I use: ua-cam.com/video/TUwqCXN_WYo/v-deo.html
If I recall correctly Optical Flow really surfaced as a potential software generated optical-ish type of slo mo way way back when Shake software was around. I think this goes back to early Lord of the Rings days... so a helluva long time ago in software terms. It was purchased by Apple and cannibalized by Apple and put into FCP eons ago. I think it worked at say a 50% acceptable quality rate which, at the time, was considered good. Not sure when Adobe licensed their version or wrote the code but likely in the same era. As such it is not surprising that current "old" optical flow is still well behind the newer stuff out there.
I'll be honest and suggest that most people shooting a b-ball game are going to at least shoot 60FPS in order to get some modicum of decent slomo as an option in post. These days with relatively cheap cameras it is not unheard of to multicam shoot and have one camera shooting 90FPS or even higher even if it takes a slight quality hit on crop or codec requirements. Obviously those will be true "optical" slo mo much like the Phantom cameras that the "slomo guys" use. But certainly plenty of cheaper option to Phantom can deliver truly amazing results... maybe not broadcast (whatever that means today) but more than fine for YT. I have used a super tiny Sony camera that did close to 1000 FPS and results were very impressive. The slomo water from the camera was more than acceptable so I'd imagine B-Ball would be incredible. Native optical slo mo is always going to yield better results.
As for rendering I would say that the vast majority of people do not have an RTX 5000 card... supposedly selling for $2500-$3000... frankly that card cost may be more than most people's computers. In real world with more common cards that mere mortals may own I'd say the rendering for this effect may be so excessive that it makes this software not even an option. It's not even practical an option IMHO.
So rule of thumb... if you need slomo just shoot it in camera and the results will be very impressive even with some cheapish Sony cameras that can shoot upwards of 1000 FPS.
Nice software and glad it resolves the issues of the old optical flow options on Adobe or elsewhere but with huge render times I don't see this being practical for the vast majority of people. For agencies maybe but they will more likely shoot multiple cameras and do the slo mo in cam. IMHO.
In my world, editors don't get to tell the director to reshoot. Of course if the editor was the shooter and had an extra day and the cast and location, sure, shoot high speed footage. But this is for all the times when footage lands in your lap and you have to make the best of it. As I show, Optical Flow doesn't cut it, but Flow Frames is absolutely remarkable.
And to answer your other question, Adobe rolled their own code for Optical Flow but way later than when Shake introduced it.
@@VideoRevealed Well this is a very very different production world than it was some 36 years ago when I started editing. These days an editor is often called "predator" since they produce things. Others call us digital producers or content creators since we shoot and edit not to mention produce the stuff. Regardless if you are talking traditional roles where everyone does their specific part any camera person worth their salt will know to at least shoot 60 fps and then you can slomo or not. Unless someone is a complete newb and decides after that they want slomo than they likely will know enough to shoot in cam. Not everyone needs a phantom cam but certainly the vast majority of cameras today have great slomo. It's just basic planning if you are a one person band.
As for the multi thousand dollar card... I'd love to see some results on less high end cards to see if the software is even practical.
Not surprising that Adobe was much later to the party with optical flow than what Apple harvested from Shake to put in FCP.
My point is that the best quality is always going to be from the camera and most cameras today are capable of doing great slomo. Just turn it on. Or just shoot 60 FPS and decide later if you want slomo or not.
Hi! Video Revealed is a great source of tips. That said, given to Caesar what belongs to him, I would say it is too wrong to use such a low fps for sports action. To compare that useless thing like Adobe Optical Flow with any other AI method of drawing a solmo from a low fps is like stealing candy from a baby, or shooting at the red cross.
Editors don't get to choose. It's, "here's the footage...make it work".
I wonder if by slow down the footage with optical flow and then use stabilization we would have better stabilization results
It's worth a try.
colin what has happen to subclips?
Nothing that I can see. It all works the same.
SpeedX - aescripts
Looks like they got some artifacts in that product.