I find myself unsatisfied with the three methods of creating slow motion footage inside of Premiere Pro - Speed Adjust, Time Remapping and Rate Stretch - and as a result end up going to After Effects for the task to take advantage of it's Pixel Motion capable Timewarp effect. This is becoming tedious. I'd love to get quality slow-mo right inside of PP, so I thought I'd ask to see what kind of results others are getting.
If you create slow motion footage out of 24p originals inside of PP, and are happy with the results, I'd love to see a sample of what you consider acceptable quality. Please share whatever links you have for uploaded footage.
Remember, 24p originals here. The quality from other frame rates or using Interpret Footage doesn't concern me, as I shoot everything at 24p.
Compared to in-camera slo mo...I find none of it truly acceptable.
Twixtor obviously is better.
Premiere is fine for a slight adjust of time. eg 20% ish either way.
DI out of AEFX ...better than Premiere.
Dont do slo mos much in PPro though because generally I will overcrank on a shot even knowing its a bit too slow for task...then speed up in Premiere.
I have never been happy with 30p slowed down more than a little in Premiere Pro let alone 24p.
Obviously you know you can shoot 6op and play it back at 24p. But you don't want to. I just don't know why. In fact, I don't really get the attraction of 24p in the first place. I know it looks more film like when shot properly, but I don't get why that is such a desired result.
Personally I am torn between the quality of shooting 30p all I-Frame at 72Mb/s or shooting 60p but at 50Mb/s. I reallly like playing with the slow motion but I want the 30p quality. At least 30p slowed down looks better than my HDV ever did since I don't have to deal with interlacing.
But let's face it. Sometimes After Effects is the right tool for the job. Or get a Twixtor plug-in. But $595 is a LOT of money when you already have After Effects anyway.
Obviously you know you can shoot 6op and play it back at 24p. But you don't want to. I just don't know why.
Two reasons. First and most importantly, 60p slowed down to 24p is 40%. I find that too slow. 60% is the sweet spot for slow motion, in my view.
Secondly, the GH2 doesn't do 1080p/60.
I don't get why [the film look] is such a desired result.
It's the difference between watching a Hollywood movie and a home video. All else being equal, which looks 'more professional' to you?
$595 is a LOT of money when you already have After Effects anyway.
Granted, but over the long haul, the time and effort it saves may well be worth it. I'll have to check out Twixtor.
Ah, I forgot that 60p is new to the GH3. Sorry about that.
While I know that everyone says that 24p looks more professional than 30p, I don't really see it myself. I think the problem is that people who shoot 24p tend to use more professional lighting and know what they are doing than those who shoot 30p on the average. I have seen the examples of people shooting both 24p and 30 in the same lighting environment but I never really saw enough difference to matter if I saw a difference. Perhaps I need to watch it on a bigger screen than my 24" PC monitors (1920X1080) to get the full effect.
Now that I can do it myself, I suppose I should give it a try.
Any suggestions as to what to shoot for a decent test?
As for slow motion having a sweet spot at 60%, I really can't comment. I have no idea where you got that idea or how that can be possible. I always thought that different footage looks better at different percentages of slow down. But OK, if you are happy with 60%, so be it. The GH3 has settings for 40%, 48% and 80%. I don't use them, but the camera has them.
I have seen Twixtor in action and I can say without a doubt that it is an amazing tool. Do check it out. Even if I had not seen it for myself, I trust Chris Meyer's opinion.
You can turn on the time warp for PP here:
Just because you shot video at 60p doesn't mean you have to set it to 24 or 30 fps to match your timeline. Set it to 40 or 50 fps or whatever for less slow motion.
Right click on the clip in the project manager and select Modify > Interpret Footage and set Assume this frame rate: to whatever you want.
To get the most out of the time warp tool use a tripod.
Please let us know how you make out.
I know that everyone says that 24p looks more professional than 30p, I don't really see it myself.
Actually everyone says 24p looks more professional than 30i. 30p is sort of off-format that's not part of any specification.
As for slow motion having a sweet spot at 60%, I really can't comment. I have no idea where you got that idea
Observation. It just looks the most...'aesthetic' to my eyes.
I can't shoot 60p, so...
Sorry again, that was my fault. Maybe you have found your reason to move to a GH3.
Seriously, the only slow motion I want to do in Premiere Pro other than that caused by interpreting 60 as 30 or 24 (or 30 as 24) is when I am getting rid of an entire frame. If I have 30p footage, I can eliminate every other frame to get 50 percent. Or in your case, slow 24 to 12. To my eye that is usually acceptable in Premiere Pro. But getting rid if every third frame just isn't the same.
Other than that, stick with After Effects, or if you are doing this for a living, make a decision between Twixtor and Twixtor Pro.
As for the advantages of 24? I will test it for myself and maybe I will finally be able to see your point. But if 24 is all that great, what is going on with the professionals shooting much faster to get a smoother film? http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-fram es-per-second/ - I don't think I agree with his conclusions. That last paragraph does not sit well with me.
I am inclined to believe that anything that makes the film look more like I am looking out a window is a good thing. However, I get the whole "It’s the way we suspend our disbelief." thing. I get it. But I am not a fan of film. I am a fan of storytelling. There is a difference. My belief is easily suspended. I don't need the assistance of 24p. My brain is wired to accept what it sees quite easily. I want to fall into the story. I imagine I would be a great subject for brain washing.
I think I will wait for the outcome of this before I decide to fully agree or disagree. To be honest, I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. I suppose I should. I just prefer to watch movies in my own home so I can play them back over and over if I have trouble understanding something. In a movie theater I keep thinking "What? What did he say? Rats. now I have to wait until it comes out on video! What did I miss?"
It is easier to just wait. However, there are some visually stunning films that require a real movie screen - like Avatar - so I get up off my couch for those. Perhaps The Hobbit is one of those films?
I work with 24fps most of the time. Shooting at 24fps leaves a tremendous amount of time/space between frames, but it's a "look" that many Producers desire. We all know most NLE software can't interpolate and then create the missing frames when we slo-mo (this is what Timewarp and Twixtor are designed to do) instead NLEs simply try to blend the existing frames to fill the missing frames.
When we know we may desire to slo-mo a shot, if the camera is not capable of over-cranking, our DPs will typically switch from 1080p24 to 720p60. Within a 1080 project, a 720 clip scaled to 150% to obtain (really nice) slo-mo is preferrable to blending existing 1080 resolution frames. Both resolutions are HD and they get cross-converted every day. There are also some good arguments that say 720p60 has more spatial information than 1080i60 (in the broadcast world).
I don't think I agree with his conclusions. That last paragraph does not sit well with me.
Having seen The Hobbit at 48 fps, I agree entirely with his conclusion. The movie had the look of a second rate BBC stage production of Dr. Who from the 70's, not the look of a first rate Hollywood film. It was weird, and I will likely be seeing the rest of the series at 24 fps, even if that means 2D only.
It isn't that it looks bad. It just doesn't look good. No kidding, I just mean that showing frames slower doesn't fool the eye the way we expect video to do. Unless you do something like Twixtor does, cranking when shooting is the only option. But if you let the software interpolate the pixels the way it does with various kinds of keyframes, only WAY more complicated for the software, then it looks much better.
Premiere Pro is a hammer. Slow Motion is a screw. You can pound in the screw, but it won't work as well as screwing it in.
Europe, Middle East and Africa