Slow motion and resolution
Will using slo mo (fcp HD) change image resolution?
It depends how much you slow it down. It might make things a little bit blurry - turn on your frame blending.
13 replies
Will using slo mo (fcp HD) change image resolution?< \</div>
Probably an incorrect use of the term "resolution." The number of pixels in your picutre will not change unless you also apply scaling or convert to another format.
Do you mean absolute image quality or perceived image quality? They're different. Anti-aliasing, for example, is a blurring, a degradation, of rough edges that makes them appear to be sharper.
Motion blur and field rendering degrade the image but make it appear better.
Let me ask another question: What are you hoping to accomplish?
bogiesan
I am editing for a feature length documentary. I am in charge of creating some segue sequences that are experimental in nature with layers, loops, and slow motion. The director posed the question that it might be a too severely "degraded" image quality compared to the other "talking heads". I just want to know what I'm dealing with when it comes to pushing final cut's filters, traveling mattes, etc to an extreme.
Here's another question, if I create a complicated sequence with layers, mattes, slo mo, etc. then export to a quicktime file to compress and then import it into the main timeline, will this ensure a higher quality overall?
Am I making any sense?
kristen
Here's another question, if I create a complicated sequence with layers, mattes, slo mo, etc. then export to a quicktime file to compress and then import it into the main timeline, will this ensure a higher quality overall?
Am I making any sense?
kristen
Here's another question, if I create a complicated sequence with layers, mattes, slo mo, etc. then export to a quicktime file to compress and then import it into the main timeline, will this ensure a higher quality overall?
If you compress it, it will lower quality. If you Export to QuickTime Movie, and select Self-Contained, and don't select to do any further compression, it will be the same quality.
If you compress it, it will lower quality. If you Export to QuickTime Movie, and select Self-Contained, and don't select to do any further compression, it will be the same quality.
Unfortunately, FCP speed-changes often cause the image to become blurrier. Turning off frame blending prevents this, but this results in strobe-y motion. Reducing the speed in even multiples (like exactly 50% as opposed to 47%) can sometimes make a visible improvement. I'm currently working on a project that opens with a gal approaching and entering a house. She starts out in the street with her back to the camera, then enters the house in a couple of seconds through a series of jump-cuts and speed changes timed to the music. Unfortunately, every time a speed change is used, the overall quality of the video drops significantly, and is very distracting. It looks like the house is cutting in-and-out of focus. I'm debating whether to drop the whole sequence. Was it Patrick who offered a novel technique a while back for using Compressor to achieve smooth slow motion?
Good luck,
Zap
Good luck,
Zap
There are 3rd party plug-ins that produce excellent slomo. For example, Boris Red 3GL will work wonders. However, if the scene has motion going in two different directions at the same time, it is extremely difficult to get good slomo, because the motion predicter tends to become double-minded.
There are others, but I've used Red, so I mentioned it. (I also work for a Boris reseller, so under the Apple Discussion ToU, I also have to mention that I might receive some compensation, blah, blah, blah.)
There are others, but I've used Red, so I mentioned it. (I also work for a Boris reseller, so under the Apple Discussion ToU, I also have to mention that I might receive some compensation, blah, blah, blah.)
I am in charge of creating some segue sequences that are experimental in nature with layers, loops, and slow motion. The director posed the question that it might be a too severely "degraded" image quality compared to the other "talking heads". I just want to know what I'm dealing with when it comes to pushing final cut's filters, traveling mattes, etc to an extreme. < </div>
We call those Cool Assignments.
It's not easily answered. The absolute image quality is predictable by knowing how many filters or render steps are in your process. But the apparent image quality may be far better, as noted above. "Pushing" FCP's effects system is easy because it's so limited until you go out to third party tools and then you must have a firm grounding in codecs and compression.
You are going to distract form the heads not by offering up a degraded image as far as pixel quality is concerned. "Degraded" in your case, seems to refer to the deconstruction of the image by deliberate manipulation.
Here's another question, if I create a complicated sequence with layers, mattes, slo mo, etc. then export to a quicktime file to compress and then import it into the main timeline, will this ensure a higher quality overall? < </div>
As Brian and Zap are trying to add, "compress" isn't what you want to do. That's whey many of us move to Motion or After Effects for this stuff and then render to a lossless codec.
\
bogiesan
That's a good idea, David. Intentionally degrade the appearance of the slomo clips with filters, so the image quality difference is accepted as normal.
"That's a great look, dude."
Creativity rescues technology.
I like it. I love it.
I want some more of it.
"That's a great look, dude."
Creativity rescues technology.
I like it. I love it.
I want some more of it.
Where do you learn all that stuff? Seriously, I know it's not the subject of the thread, but I'm consistanly impressed by how much lots of you know versus the little I've been able to learn through self-teach and simple tutorials. Granted I've only been at this less than a year with mostly straight cuts and disolves in my work. What would you recommend?
Spend 20 minutes in this forum everyday. You will pick up all kinds of cool tips, tricks and links to helpful articles. Don't just stop here either. If you have time find a couple of of forums and sites about editing. Here's a couple off the top of my head
kenstone.net
proapptips.com
geniusdv.com
2pop.com
dvinfo.net
creativecow.com
I generally surf during renders and while capturing/exporting.
kenstone.net
proapptips.com
geniusdv.com
2pop.com
dvinfo.net
creativecow.com
I generally surf during renders and while capturing/exporting.
You might check out this thread:
Compressor For SlowMo gives Fantastic Results
I successfully slowed down the background video in this clip over 500% (granted, there's a lot else going on there, but if you look beyond that to the underlying video, you can see it is quite smooth).
Does that help?
Patrick
Compressor For SlowMo gives Fantastic Results
I successfully slowed down the background video in this clip over 500% (granted, there's a lot else going on there, but if you look beyond that to the underlying video, you can see it is quite smooth).
Does that help?
Patrick
We call those Cool Assignments.
The absolute image quality is predictable by knowing how
many filters or render steps are in your process.
"Pushing" FCP's effects system is easy because it's so
limited until you go out to third party tools and then
you must have a firm grounding in codecs and
compression.
Bogie--
I love Cool Assignments! I was just wondering, do you really feel that using FCP's effects system introduces significant quality degradation in effects-heavy projects? I use stacks and stacks of filters, mattes, composite modes, and nests (as much as 10 deep) all the time. When I render, I get the impression that FCP is building my new composite "from scratch", not layering on degradation with each new effect. Depending on the type of project, I might have to switch to a high-quality codec and enable high-precision YUV for best results, but I've never felt that "pushing" FCP has degraded the quality of my video. On the other hand, 3rd-party programs can be better at performing certain effects, like slow-mo, so maybe that's what you're saying. I'm not saying you're wrong, I was just curious what you meant.
Zap
Thanks, that's one program that's definitely on my wish-list.
Slow motion and resolution