Jump to content


Photo

AE: Faking 2000 fps


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 BarneyDmedia

BarneyDmedia

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 March 2012 - 02:37 AM

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.
  • 0

#2 Geoff Howell

Geoff Howell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 March 2012 - 08:56 AM

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)
  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 10 March 2012 - 09:11 AM

To be honest it looks nothing like 2000 fps!
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 March 2012 - 10:04 AM

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:



  • 0

#5 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Other
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:05 AM

Stephen, I don't think you're being too generous there....it's shot on a $1,000 camera!
  • 0

#6 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2427 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:34 AM

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.
  • 0


Opal

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

The Slider

CineLab

Tai Audio

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera