Smooth, super-slow, sharp, slow-motion video!

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by David Ruether, Apr 20, 2014.

  1. Hey, I found a way to make smooth, super-slow, sharp,
    slow-motion video cheaply! A video test sample is here:
    To view it properly, select "1080P" and "full-screen".
    It takes a few seconds to switch to the higher
    resolution and larger size, and you may need to pause
    the playing to let the streaming get a bit ahead to
    prevent "stops" in the playing of this video. I put
    a half-sized full-speed version of the video at the
    beginning and end for comparison with the 1/8th play
    speed of the full-sized version between them. The
    slow-motion version still retains much of the original
    file's sharpness, even with streaming, but both
    sharpness and smoothness do suffer a bit compared with
    the original. The "music" was a quick "cobbling"
    together of some of my MIDI and bird sound recordings.
    The camera used was a Panasonic G5, which shoots very
    sharp 1080-60p video. The lens is a very sharp selected
    sample of the Rokinon 180-degree 7.5mm fisheye. To find
    out how I did it, click on "About" on YouTube, and you
    will know "the secrets"!;-)

    [Hint: it involves using both Sony Vegas and proDAD
    ReSpeedr together - but other software would likely
    work, also...;-]
    David Ruether, Apr 20, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Ruether

    Brian Guest

    Looks like the snow is now gone. Odd shaped house (grin).
    The video does look sharp as you say but does that mean you are limited to
    slowing down the video to create the sharpness? if so then it would be
    limited to landscape photography. Having fish eye lens may have added to
    the sharpness as telephoto lens seem to lose sharpness.
    There seems to be a lot of things you did to the video to get it looking
    the way you wanted it to look, out of interest how much time did it take to
    work on the video?
    Brian, Apr 21, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. No - the original is VERY sharp (the Panasonic G5, G6, and
    GX7 (in 1080-60P mode) produce the sharpest video available
    with "amateur" cameras, rivaling (and generally surpassing)
    pro gear in that respect at prices up to the hundreds of
    thousands of dollars. Being a "sharpness nut", that's why
    I chose Panasonic for video...;-) This year there have
    appeared a couple of other-brand "amateur" cameras that do
    well with video sharpness, but Panasonic is still best for
    this, and has jumped well ahead again with the GH4 shooting
    4K video, down-sized to 1080P - and that is going to be
    VERY hard to equal! What I appeared to have stumbled on
    (with combining the "efforts" of two different pieces of
    software, using high-quality 60P original footage), is a
    method for producing high-quality VERY slow motion video
    with minimal artifacting that did not require a $7,000
    high-speed camera to shoot it - and it works well even with
    highly-detailed wide-angle views (which do not work well
    with ReSpeedr/Twixtor used alone for synthesizing the many
    extra frames necessary for smooth slow motion rendering).
    THIS IS "NEAT"! 8^)
    ??? Only with poor technique and a poor understanding of
    the effects shooting conditions have on image quality with
    long focal-length lenses do the best modern lenses appear
    other than at least equally sharp compared with wide-angles.
    Here are some sample photos shot with lenses ranging from
    (35mm full-frame equivalents) 15mm 180-degree fisheye to
    GIANT 2,000mm super-telephoto:
    The one under "500mm" that shows a bunch of buildings
    is one shot from two miles away with a 2,000mm-equivalent
    lens (one that would not ordinarily be considered sharp,
    using a 500mm mirror lens on a 2X tele-converter on a
    2X-enlarging format [MFT]), but does it look unsharp to
    Almost none, once I "got the hang of it"...!;-) In editing,
    I almost automatically modify footage to optimize it, and
    I consider doing that basic to editing. I'm always amazed
    when I see footage merely strung together, without much
    attempt to better it with the easy-to-use multiple ways
    available to us with modern digital editing software.
    David Ruether, Apr 21, 2014
  4. David Ruether

    Brian Guest

    I must have misunderstood your aim, it looks like you want to create sharp
    video in slow motion.

    Nice photos David. You have an eye for beauty.
    They all look sharp on my iPad but later I'll check them on a laptop

    I was at a photo competition recently and the judge rewarded those that
    made the effect to improve on their photos.
    I'm often amazed on watching a very dark photo restored to normal
    brightness with photo editing techniques.
    Good to see your expiments resulting in some success David.
    Brian, Apr 21, 2014
  5. Yes..., and it turns out that that is (was) normally difficult
    without using very high frame-rate capable video gear. I appear
    to have accidentally found an alternative solution to the problem
    of getting smooth and sharp slow motion video without major
    limitations and artifacting - and without having to shoot it at
    a very high frame rate in the first place.
    They are small on the web page, but almost all look quite sharp
    at 4608x3456 pixel size - but the longest tele ones mostly needed
    to go down to 1920x1440 to look really sharp.
    Yes, thanks! I'm happy to have had that fortuitous whim, to
    have tried what I did, and to have had such an unexpectedly
    good result! Sometimes much of success is attributable to
    luck...! 8^)
    David Ruether, Apr 21, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.