Nir Levy

Nir Levy

Hi, can someone tell me what is the best FULL HD camera that have slow motion futre?
i wnat to buy the CANON HF S100 or S10.
Thanks.

4Moorhens2

4Moorhens2

That 12 mega pixel Canon may be "excellent" but slow motion is only possible using 320x240 at 240fps or 640x480 at 120fps - full 1920x1080 HD is only at 24fps. And it doesn't even do 1280x720 60i/p !!! which can be easily and satisfactorily slowed to 24fps (40% speed.)

Mark Green

Mark Green

Technology advances! DigitalWestImaging.com 3MP @ 500fps and 100,000 fps at reduced ROI. Q-Series, special rental available less than $1K. S-PRI does 720p @ 500fps, up to 4000 fps all done in camera, purchase for less than $10K.

editnelson

editnelson

I have a canon Xf100 that's shoots 60FP and a canon 60D. Like slow motion on both canon XF has a build time lapse

Perrone Ford

Perrone Ford

Slow motion is not recorded in the camera. It is done in post processing.

Positive Pictures

Positive Pictures PRO

in fact some camera reccord slow motions (60i mode)
mine... canon XH-A1

Chad Johnson

Chad Johnson Plus

My Sony EX1 records Slow motion at 720/30p. 60FPS. It's the best camera for under 10 grand.

cody joyner

cody joyner

not any more, chek out nexfs100 1080 60p 4 2 2 codec

Delltar

Delltar

Yeah but you have to have enough fps to slow it down in postpro and keep fluent motion. You can work around that with some (pretty cool btw) software solutions, but nothing beats superfast recording.

Perrone Ford

Perrone Ford

Oh yes, I see. 226x56. Not sure what good that would be.

Perrone Ford

Perrone Ford

There are a number of cams that can shoot high frame rates. But when someone says "BEST" then tosses in the names of cameras that cost less than the media on a real cam for slo-mo, I have to ask questions.

But the fact remains. Slo-Mo is done in post... not in the camera.

Ian Lucero

Ian Lucero Plus

Hey Perrone, could you explain what you mean by "Slo-Mo is done in post... not in the camera." ?

I just thought, for instance with the HPX170, that when you are shooting at 60fps (in 24pN aka. 24p Native) it is eating up that much more memory because it is capturing that much more information... and when I play it back on the camera it plays it slow.

When you say slo-mo is done in post, do you mean that it is the software (FCP, Premiere, Avid, etc.) that is breaking down the frames in a 24p, 30p, etc. timeline and thus giving the slo-mo effect? Meaning, without the software there would be no slo-mo? I think I know what you are trying to point out to the original poster... that it isn't the camera doing the effect, for any camera can shoot 30p, 24p, etc... but drop it into a timeline that is different from those native speeds and you get a different speed effect. I don't think I can clearly explain. Can you?

Chad Johnson

Chad Johnson Plus

You can do slow motion in post, but it looks jerky because you are slowing down footage that is 30fps to a slower rate. Playback is usually 30fps (TV & DVDs), or 24fps (Film or Blueray). Some cameras can to "over cranking" that allows it to record more frames per second than typical playback (30fps). Tape cameras can't do it. It needs to be something like the Sony EX1 (uses SxS cards) or Panasonic HPX170 (uses P2 cards).

Perrone Ford

Perrone Ford

When we shoot video, typically we have a playback frame rate in mind. If we are going to film, it's 24fps. If it's NTSC television, its 30fps. In PAL land it's 25fps. So far so good.

If I plan to play back at 24fps and I record 24fps in the camera then I have a nice 1:1 relationship between what is shot, and what is going to be played back. However, I can drop that 24fps video onto my timeline, and tell the software to take twice as long to play it. This is how slo-mo is done.

The problem becomes that instead of the 24 frames per second, I really now need 48 because it has to take twice as long. If I didn't shoot 48fps in the camera, the NLE has to manufacture (guess) at what is missing. Most NLEs don't guess that well and the footage becomes a jerky, stuttering mess.

If I shoot 48fps in the camera, with the INTENT of playing it back at 24fps then I can now produce slo-mo with no guessing by the NLE. And all is perfect and smooth. So what happens if I shoot 60fps in the camera and intend to play back at 24fps and I don't WANT any slo-mo? Well now the NLE gets to throw away stuff it doesn't need. Depending on how this is done, it can be very clean, or it can be a jerky mess. But in no case does the NLE have to "guess" at information that simply isn't there.

So the frame rate in the camera doesn't necessarily give slo-mo. It DOES give the filmmaker the option to do higher quality slo-mo if the footage is shot with the intended use in mind. True filmmakers will often bring in special cameras for scenes where explosions or other actions will take place that need to be shown in slow motion. These can range from the common 120fps in some high speed film camera, to over 1000fps in some digital cameras. This requires special lighting, and other things.

I tend to shoot sports at 60fps. I can't stop a game or a play and yell "Hold on! Let me set this up for slo-mo!" So I shoot at 60fps the entire time, and only use all 60 frames for those times I want a slo-mo effect. The other times, I choose to throw away half the frames and let it play back at the common 30fps. But that is a choice in post. In the NLE. NOT in the camera.

Ian Lucero

Ian Lucero Plus

Wow Thank you for explaining that so eloquently.

I understand the slomotion process a lot better now.

:)

Peter Mack

Peter Mack Plus

the choice to shoot 60 fps in the film world is considered over-cranking for the sole purpose of creating slow motion as those frames will be played back at the industry standard of 24fps. the reality is that motion is controlled in camera and should be a conscious choice.

Nir Levy

Nir Levy

Thanks all of you for your help.
can someone tell me if Canon s10 or s100 or the new one HF S11 can take shots with 60fps in sports mode?
Thanks.

Xavier Gil

Xavier Gil

I have HF S11 and have to do it in Post...not difficult

hot chip

hot chip

We just shot on the Phantom and it was amazing. We were planning for 1000fps but it was too slow so we settled on 300fps and it was perfect. The only thing is that it needed a lot more light than expected.

You can watch it here:

bit.ly/aMOXGP

Mike Meier

Mike Meier

I really need to try out this feature on my HDR-HC9.

Chris Crutchfield

Chris Crutchfield Plus

of course perrone explained the process very well above...

i've had all kinds of experience with tons of different styles of cameras but to best answer your question we should know, or have an idea, of how much youre trying to spend. The Canon T2i records full HD and only costs $800 bucks. The Phantom/RED One and other cams also record full HD and beyond.. and cost a ton more.. and there are of course several options in between.

This is a video ( vimeo.com/10704940 ) that i shot on the Canon T2i.. and as Perrone mentioned above, i intended the final to be a 24p output, so i shot some of the stuff in 60fps which is roughly 2.5x the speed of 24p 24p so I was able to slow my stuff down about two and half times in post. Now do note that on the t2i the 60fps footage can only be captured at 720p, but as is evident in my vid, the upscaling to 1080p isn't bad at all.

But then again you may not be trying to go the DSLR route...

Video by Wes

Video by Wes Plus

Overcranking is done in camera.

This is the best way to get slower-than-normal-motion playback. You record more frames than you need, and play them back at whatever rate you want on a NLE system.

There are cameras that will do this in HD and they are very expensive.

There are a couple of Casio's that will do this, but not at full HD. Though they are VHS-ish and can be anywhere from 210 fps to 300 fps.
The 1000 fps bursts they can achieve are just for kicks, as their image quality is zilch.

The best you can do with 60fps on a 30fps timeline is 1/2 speed, meanin motion will take twice as long to complete. or 2.5 times if you're on a 24fps timeline. Anything longer is a matter of ramping but is not pure slo-mo as frames must be created by the software.

The Casio's will require around 2-4 stops more light to get a decent image at 200-300 fps.

CoasterGeek101

CoasterGeek101

I have a 150 dollar camcorder that shoots great 60 fps. Kodak Zi8. :)

Christian Kent

Christian Kent

The Sanyo HD2000 and sister products were only $500-$700 and could do 1920x1080p at 60fps … such a shame that Panasonic bought it up and killed it off.

David Gordon

David Gordon

You guys should check out the Olympus i-Speed LT and their other models in the i-Speed line. These are truly some of the best cameras around for slow-motion playback and have frame rates from 2,000fps and up. They allow for a video screen to be plugged into them that allows 'on-camera' slow-motion viewing in real time, without having to export the video to a graphics program like Adobe After Effects or FCP. The plug-in screen has forward and back buttons as well as controls to change the playback frame rate. These are simply awesome cameras.

ys lee

ys lee Plus

Sorry to say that I tried it, it's horrible. Low light flickering, the image is horrible. Sacrificing every aspect of the image just for slow motion is not the right way to create a product.

shawn wytch

shawn wytch

doesnt the sony nex vn do the job you want i think it would.

Vivek Jaiswal

Vivek Jaiswal Plus

if this is what FCPX can do then its amazing!! thanks for sharing.

FragMnesis

FragMnesis Plus

Hi everyone
Perrone:
In fact thara are some machines that RECORD slo mo
Tape machines like sony v1, z5, fx1000, etc.
This type of cameras uses a buffer to record some time about 6 seconds and then send it to tape at it's natural frame rate being 25 or 30 so it acually records the slo mo, so in this case if you want a regular speed you have to put it faster with your software.
Other than that your explanation was quite accurate and clear.

4Moorhens2

4Moorhens2

fragmnensis,

But the point is slo mo is not actually recorded in real time, which is an obvious impossibility, rather movement is recorded at a high frame rate then the frame rate is reduced to create a slow motion effect at some later stage. This can be done internally with inexpensive cameras normally limited to auto mode only and in SD where, for example, a frame rate is set to 120fps by the user and the camera will record to media at 30fps and thus the video will playback at 1/4 speed even when played back in the camera.

If the camera, as in the above example, captures at 120fps but this time records to media at 120fps then there is no need to buffer and the high frame rate can be changed during post processing to 30fps and thus 1/4 speed can be created on the timeline without the need to add interpolated frames such as one might do with the twixtor software.

For capturing and recording in HD at really high frame rates, in order to create super slo mo, then specialised equipment is required and extremely good lighting conditions because a very fast shutter will certainly be necessary.

For most folks a good HD camera that has full manual control and captures/records at 60fps progressive (or 60i - 60 fields per second) plus suitable software to create interpolated intermediate frames, should be adequate for creating interesting HD slo mo effects at less than 40% speed.

Jeffrey O'Neil

Jeffrey O'Neil Plus

I have the canon 7D, and it can shoot at 720 with 60 fps. If shooting at 1080, then the most it can do is 30. The camera costs $1600.

4Moorhens2

4Moorhens2

There's no big problem with 720p unless you wish to pan&crop when editing is there?

shawn wytch

shawn wytch

these days you dont really need full 1080 but i understand. i think the red cameras.

Karl Soule

Karl Soule

Phantom is the one used on shows like "Time Warp." Excellent camera with incredibly high frame rates, but a big price tag (even renting) to go along with it.

The RED ONE and RED EPIC are both good cams for frame rates up to 120fps. The RED ONE can do it at 2K resolution (slightly higher than HD) and the EPIC can go to 5K resolution. RED cameras still come with a pro-grade price, however.

I've been looking for the next generation of what Casio has been pioneering - the consumer-grade camera that can do a minimum of 120fps at something approaching HD res. (Even 720p) Haven't seen anything out there that fits the bill.

For now, shooting 720p60 on my Canon 550D, and using Twixtor (a plug-in for After Effects) is the most cost-effective way I've seen for slo-mo. Twixtor gives incredible results on the right footage. Here's an example: vimeo.com/24275575

Wally Banger

Wally Banger

So I guess there's no such thing as a camera that will do 500fps @ 720P for under $1000, eh?

Johnson Ling

Johnson Ling

That's why I'm trying to crack my head also, I mean there has to be one right? even 300fps @ 720P for $3000. Come on camera manufacturers, make a medium range slow-mo cam. All the slow-mo cams are only available thru day to day rentals.

Jc Zubiaur

Jc Zubiaur

You should check the Plug-in called TWIXTOR for After Effects

Johnson Ling

Johnson Ling

Are there any cameras out there that can shoot standard HD and a higher fps than 120 for a price below $3000? And no, not the gopro.

Chas Tennis

Chas Tennis

It's much, much worse than the replies have indicated.

In 2008 Casio produced the EX F1 with MANUAL exposure control that allowed setting the shutter speed for minimum motion blur. The F1 was the first affordable high speed video camera with a big step up in high performance capability. They followed that with similar cameras of the EX series with MANUAL exposure control: the FH20, FH25 and finally the FH100 in 2010. Apparently these wonderful cameras that allowed really useful high speed video of athletic motions such as golf swings and tennis strokes did not sell well enough. My Casio FH 100 cost $239. Cheaper, lower performance high speed video cameras including several models by Casio with AUTO exposure control competed for a limited market. Casio introduced the great F1 camera in 2008 and but the buyers did not appreciate it. Now there are no affordable cameras offered by any manufacturer with MANUAL shutter speed control.

These were lower resolution cameras because they pushed the technology to make a really useful high speed video camera.

These lower resolution cameras also had small, workable Jello Effect distortions. JE gets worse as resolution is increased. Controlling JE with both HD and high speed video is an engineering challenge.

Hopefully one of the camera manufacturers will once again off a high speed video camera with MANUAL exposure control so that motion blur will be acceptable for athletic motions and other technical applications.

Unfortunately, HD and high speed video is probably some years off unless..................

Caio Orsolini

Caio Orsolini

Actually, Casio just had an awful marketing / distribution strategy. I bought my first one (FC 100, I think) about 3 years ago (I think), and about 1-2 years later, bought another, a new model (I think it's the same FH 100 as you bought). In both cases, I couldn't even DREAM of buying them here in Brazil. And even going to the USA I couldn't find them in stores, except online (Amazon and stuff). Most sellers at physical stores had never even heard of such things, those cameras that could record up to 1000 fps.

If people would not even know they existed, and when they knew, it would be so hard to find, how did they expect to sell more?

But I can say that they are awesome, and everybody who's ever seen mine wants one for themselves. Maybe if Casio had believed more in their own product, they could have sold a lot more.

Jeff Revell

Jeff Revell

This is an old thread but most of the info is still pretty accurate. So for anyone still wondering, you can shoot slo-mo with most video cameras today because most offer at least 720p with 60fps. At 60frames per secons you can slow down the video to about half speed in post production and still capture smooth motion at 30 frames per second because the camera recorded the necessary number of frames.

For those who are saying that slo-mo is done in post, they are sort of right. Most video will be displayed at standard viewing speeds and you have to slow it down using a post-production software application to have the video view at slower than norma rates. The problem is that when you slow down standard video shot in 24 or 30 fps, you only have thos frames to work with so the software must interpolate the footage to slow it down. This leads to an artifical looking slow-mo with sometimes jerky footage. To truly capture slow motion you must be using a camera that can generate the number of frames necessary for smooth playback. I am talking 120, 300, even 500 frames per second. These cameras exist but you will have a tough time finding any of them that sell for under 1K. The truth is that these high-speed cameras usually start around 10K and go up from there. High-speed models from Phantom, NAC, Olympus, Photron, etc. are very expensive with a pretty steep learning curve (although some of them have gotten easier to use over the past few years). One thing that has improved in most of these cameras is their ability to capture at HD resolutions. Many of them will capture 720 res at speeds up to 5000 fps. As the speeds increase beyond those rates the image resolution is decreased.

Last year Vision Research launched a new line of small Phantom cameras called Miro. There are several versions of the camera but the lowest end is the M110, which will capture 1200x800 video at up to 1600fps. The pricetag for this low-end model is $25K.

If you really want to get into the world of high-speed/slow-mo you should google search for high-speed cameras and start looking at the possibilities that exist. One option would be to find a Casio Exilim EX-FH20. You can probably find a used one for less than $800 and it has the ability to shoot at some very fast frame rates (up to 1000 fps). Just be aware that you won't be capturing at HD resolutions.

The bottom line is that if you want quality that is slower than half-speed you should be prepared for the sticker shock.

Chris Simpson

Chris Simpson

The new Sony FS700 is probably the best compromise between price and quality. Not cheap though $6-7000.

4Moorhens2

4Moorhens2

Not forgetting that very good light conditions are also required since a fast shutter speed will be required. If light conditions are variable then using twixtor, or similar, in post would probably be a better bet...

RT

RT PRO

Your really looking at between 8 & 10K for the FS700 depending on if you buy the body only or with the kit lens and some accessories (extra batteries, media, adaptors etc)....

DIAKRIT International LTD

DIAKRIT International LTD PRO

Hello everyone,

I want to post in this thread about cameras that make good quality atm (2012-09-04). NX200 is superior under 1k€. 720 w 60fps. That is HALF slowmo without losing Q and it has enough settings to help you think of postproduction. Every alteration makes material worse. its just like that so learn to take good photos/film first. Interlaced formats is kinda *cough*Crap because who is going to view it hehe ? there are no more TVs made that can show interlaced correct and it IS a hassle de-interlacing in a nice way because you always lose quality. Its very simple actually. Id say that most cameras already have the settings we need regarding fps and HD. In 1 year everything ive said has changed. then we will talk about 120 and 240 and 320 fps for compacts in 720p and maybe even in 1080p. ( under 1k€)

Also the NX200 has lenses :) trust me and go for this compact. its really nice and has good settings. Other than this camera id say the 800D is great because of its compress features, although, it is a versatile camera so i cant suggest it for everyone because there are many manufacturers that make highspeed cameras. Also the highspeed cameras for when you actually NEED one is best to RENT. You will rarely need slowmotion for everything so, make a plan. In the end of it and in this case start of it... planning your video/film/adventure is everything. If you dont plan it you are basically not professional and then you can use different cameras for different things. GoPro Hero 2 has a quite nice pixel dimensions for 120fps if you think you are good in your editing program because you can manipulate the material to look better. One thing you have to teach yourself or really research is.... what the common EYE is. If you know that then you can pretty much do whatever you want and always produce masterpieces, technically at least.

example in PS: If you want contrast in your image what do you do?
1: curves etc etc
2: PAINT your own contrast. very easy. make picture more saturated and dark zones darker and bright leave if you want. Basically im saying No one will know except yourself what you are doing to the image or film, BUT they will ASSOCIATE their own perspective of contrast by by looking at it so just imagine the place you want to be in and create.

IF IT LOOKS GOOD IT IS GOOD ! ! !

The best cheapo/ pro cameras dont have much contrast :) good for postproduction. NX200 and RX100 are kinda flat in that way but that is personal/skill preference. This is good to think if you are not a skilled photographer. Better to be carefull with contrast in PREmode so you can easier work in POSTmode.

There is something for everyone.

Im talking about cameras under 1k €, OTHERWISE there is so many options you cant imagine. Pay a smartass mathematician and you can make your own :)

About the formats on the affordable market. NX200 720p - 60 fps and GoPro Hero 2 is a very cheap camera but it makes good enough film to work on. So this is your cheapo funno option for sure. NX200 is just sweet if you can handle it correct !

GL nd HF ;)

>x

Caio Silva

Caio Silva

Guys what you think about the CASIO EX-FH25 It says can do "Video Capture at up to 1,000 fps". Under $500. Thanks!

Thomas A

Thomas A

The Sony NEXFS700 will record in 120, 240, 480, and 960 fps. If I had the money I would have already bought that camera.

Matt L

Matt L

If you are looking for a cheap camera under $500 that will shoot at 120 fps the GoPro Hero 3 is just te right thing for you. With the capability to shoot at 60 frames at full HD (1080p) and a built in optional wide angle lens the GoPro hero 3 is perfect for beginners.

Link: gopro.com/hd-hero3-cameras

Aaron Hightower

Aaron Hightower

That JVC looks pretty sweet. Especially being able to record up to two hours continuously. That's pretty awesome for under a grand. I still want the Sony NEX-FS700U but having a hard time saving for it and I don't want to rent it.

Aaron Hightower

Aaron Hightower

I will be getting the JVC GC-PX10 in the mail tomorrow. If anybody is interested for me to share some results, let me know. I'm going to do casino dice bouncing on a craps table and maybe some 1:10 scale RC cars.

Aaron Hightower

Aaron Hightower

The GoPro Hero3 also does a good 240hz and 120hz if the lens is acceptable for your needs. All of these cameras that are under $1000 don't compare to the NEX-FS700U for creating HD video. But the GoPro is currently king of price performance in terms of just raw bandwidth. If I had to only get one camera for under $1000, the $399 GoPro Hero3 black is the winner at this moment. JVC PX-10 is a contender, and the casino cameras all do a good job as well, but by the time you get down to limited times to record and low resolution, it's a compromise. The PX10 and GoPro Hero3 set themselves apart.

Richard Bell

Richard Bell

I have the Sony HDR-AS15 it cost $299 it shoots 1920 X 1080 and that looks great
and it shoots 720 X 1080 HD @ 120FPS (and it looks great.

Aaron Hightower

Aaron Hightower

Yeah, I have the GoPro Hero3 now. It's tops actually with 848x480@240 fps and the image quality is fantastic. If you need narrower field of view, the Casio EX-ZR1000 does 512x384@240hz continuously as well. The JVC GC-PX10 does not have as good of image quality as the Casio or the EX-ZR1000, but I managed to dial down the exposure on the JVC to get better results. They are really far behind GoPro and even the Casio is great quality compared to the JVC. I will upload results from all of my slow motion solutions. The only sub $1,000 modern slow-mo I don't have is the Nikon J1. I hear that it's really good too, but I'm beginning to be quite a collector of consumer slow-motion cameras for my analysis of dice bouncing on craps tables.

Aaron Hightower

Aaron Hightower

The GoPro Hero3 also does 720p120 and 1080p60. If the lens is acceptable the GoPro is your answer. The PX-100 is coming in March, but no new resolution or rates than the PX-10. The big improvement is the packaging and the tablet app for sports analysis. But also consider that the GoPro, the Casio EX-ZR1000 and the JVC GC-PX10 are the only three models that I know of that record continuosly at 240Hz rates. Most cameras can only do a few seconds at this rate.

James Engelbrecht

James Engelbrecht

Skimmed through this thread (and read quite a few of the posts) and I ended up googling a lot of the cameras..well the ones I did not know! Interesting to see how far we have come in terms of 'high speed' recording in the last 6 months.

I dont think anybody mentioned the Sony FS100? It records 1920x1080p @ 50/60fps, and has a high speed 120fps burst mode (at reduced res). Phillip Bloom did some interesting short films with this camera for SONY (philipbloom.net/2012/12/08/extra/)

There is also the Sony NEX 5R, NEX 6 & NEX 7 , ranging from $600 to $1100. Here's the kicker, they all shoot at 1080p / 60fps. Bit rates up to 28Mbps. Added bonus is that the cameras have interchangeable lenses (Like the FS100). Although I have never shot with the Sony NEX series cameras so dont know what their video capabilities are...

Gabrielle Sproat

Gabrielle Sproat

ooops but it is a bit pricey. There is also the Phantom Flex...up to 10,000 fps.

UK Graphic

UK Graphic

how much does it cost to get my hand on a photron or a phantom cam? :P

Raoul THEEUWS

Raoul THEEUWS

It seems the brand new camcorder of JVC, the GC PX100, will be the ideal camcorder for your needs!
the price: around 1000 Dol.

Fred Johansen

Fred Johansen

I've recently bought the JVC GC-PX100 at a price of 1.550 USD (quite high price rate compared to the above mentioned) though I'm very pleased by the quality and the solution it gives for my needs :)

George Bouwens

George Bouwens

New Panansonic "bridge "camera. 24-600mm zoom. About $450 - $500. The DMC-FZ200 records high-speed videos at 120 fps (NTSC / HD)*or 240 fps (NTSC / VGA)*in MP4 format. Holds F 2.8 thru whole zoom. I have had it since christmas and love it. I shoot surfing and here's one of the short videos I made with this camera: vimeo.com/63868849

Jim Bennett

Jim Bennett

What is the current state of slow motion video now? I see a lot of people use Twixtor with DSLR video, and others use dedicated video cameras with high speed capability. Is using twixtor with a DSLR just as good as using a high FPS video camera?

Arturs S.

Arturs S.

Unfortunatly it's been 5 bloody years since this discussion started and there is still NO decent cameras under 1000$ capable of 720p or HD at 120+ frames per second. Actually to be honest up till now iPhone 5s and GoPro 3 produces only really usable 720p 120fps footage i've seen from consumer grade handheld cameras, which is sad. Even 2000$+ worth DSLR/mirrorless cameras still sucks in video mode.

Thanks god, in price segment of around 5000$ there is major innovation - company Edgetronic successfuly launched their kickstarter campaing last year and now produces and sells pretty amazing cameras capable of shooting 720p video at 700fps and HD video at 500fps using ordinary lighting, and kit costs only ~5500 USD. This camera is still unbeated in quality/framerate segment under 10k USD.

Link: edgertronic.com/

About Your question - if Twixtor is as good as hi-speed camera - of course NOT. Everyone must understand that Twixtor works good only on specific conditions - when source material is good (at least 60fps and as short shutter as possible), and when camera is stationary and there is not much movement in frame. This is reason why, for example, guy making backflip with clear sky in backgraound looks amzing in Twitor, but surfer in wave looks awful. Twixtor can only give nice small additional effect to your video, not replace specially made camera that costs tens of thousands of dollars. :)

UK Graphic

UK Graphic

I'd like to get a high speed cam for the budget of $10K or sth like that, any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

footprintfilm

footprintfilm PRO

@uk Graphic sony FS700 with the upgrade you can shoot continuously at 240fps 2k RAW or internally 1080p for 9 second burst. Also can shoot 60fps continuously and other high frame rates in burst mode.

This conversation is missing your voice. Please join Vimeo or log in.