I recently needed to extend a very short clip to fill a gap. Using the "normal" method in Liquid gave me the length, with a resulting factor of 25% - but the quality, using any of the available settings was understandably very poor.

• Using Mix Frames the result was blurred and the details all had "edges" as they moved (sorry - can't describe it any better!).
• Using Cut Frames, the motion would advance in one frame, then stay stationary for the next two, then move again etc. So it looked really jerky.

I found that if I used the Cut Frames result and then applied Mercalli, using the "Shoulder Cam harmonize Pan" setting, I could achieve a really smooth slow motion - a huge improvement over the basic Timewarp settings.

Very clever. Thanks for the tip.

We have the Book of Secrets thread where those useful tips can go to a single thread.

Otherwise within some days it will be lost. I wish that it could be pined so anyone could add their tips.
 

Darn it!!! I wish I had thought of that I could have use it a few weeks ago, Need to remember this one......

Thanks

I don't seem to have the "Shoulder Cam harmonize Pan" setting with my version... Mercalli Pro ver. 1.0.9

But, I did find Tripod: harmonize pan shot setting that work sometimes... in a lot of instances (specially where you actually had a panning shot), the slow motion was jerky and the origianl cut frames time warp was better... of course this was using HD video.

The best results I found using your method (using Tripod: harmonize pan shot setting) was when the camera was steady and on a tripod (but... I only got a barely visible improvement).

I wonder if this difference is because I was using HD format video? Or, I don't have the right settings... since, I don't have the Shoulder Cam harmonze pan setting.  If you have them, maybe I can duplicate and see if those particular settings will work.

Joe Moya

Update it here.

1.0.11 

Thanks,... I updated my Mercalli...

But..... still no "Shoulder Cam harmonize Pan" setting ... unless he used a Should Cam improve camera panning setting... which I doubt since that makes the slow motion much more jerky than without Mercalli.

And, when I used what I think is the equivalent to the Should cam harmonize pan setting called "Tripod: Harmonise Pan" setting... where, there may be what appears to be some minor improvements in slow motion (but, when I went frame by frame... I saw no changes or improvements in transitions between the fixed frames and the change to the next set of fixed frame groupings.

The video I am using is HD filmed at 29.97 fps and 1/500 shutter speed... 

Joe Moya

I'm out of town right now and have no access to my system - I'll be back in a couple of days and provide some more details.

Sorry if there was some confusion on this. I rechecked the settings I used and they are not quite what I said.

Firstly, I have posted this on Vimeo. This clip shows three stages - it's short so you may have to read fast - but you can play it as many times as you need.

I said I had used "Cut Frames", while in fact I used "Cut Fields" for the Timewarp setting. In fact, the results are the same for either one. I think you need this "jerky" setting so Meraclli can then smooth it out - if you use the "Mix Fields" setting, Mercalli doesn't "see" any advantage so it doesn't do much. 

The Mercalli setting that I used was actually "Shoulder cam: Improve Camera Panning (without tilt correction)". And this was all shot in HDV on an HV20. Don't expect high quality - this was shot from a glass-bottom boat, and I was only after the flash of the blue fish to liven up some otherwise dull footage.

You have to be careful in choosing your setting s with Mercalli. Because the boat was moving, I chose a setting that had "panning" invovlved - although in this case the whole camera platform was moving. For other situations you may have to select different settings. Alos, I suspect that the advantages would disappear with smaller amounts of timewarrp. I doubt if there would be any advantage at, say, 75%.

Curious... because I did not get much of an improvement with my footage using your original post's description...

BUT... I shot mine at a shutter speed of 1/500 (if memory is correct, ... could have been greater.)

... did you shoot your clips at a different frame rate?

I am wondering if this is what could be the difference between what you are getting and what I am getting as results.

I'm not at my computer, so I don't know if using Cut Fields would make much of a difference compared to your origianl posts description of your method... or, if simply using Cut Frames gives the same results as using the Cut Fields with Mercalli combo.

Joe Moya

Joe, I think I shot mine at 1/250th - but it might have been at 1/100th. These are the only two speeds I use, except in extreme circumstances. I was also shooting at 60i. (For future reference, this info is attached as a comment in the Vimeo site).

What was your timewarp %?

I thought it interesting the 1st 2 examples showed the blue fish dropping smother than the last example which the scenery as smooth while the fish is jerky! Thanks for the info.....Edd

Same here... the video I used was 60i on the HV30...

I tried it on 50, 35 and 25% timewarps... same results.

Have you tried to compare a Cut Frame only vs. usng the Cut Fields with Mercalli combo you found to be usefull?

Joe

smithe1:

I thought it interesting the 1st 2 examples showed the blue fish dropping smother than the last example which the scenery as smooth while the fish is jerky! Thanks for the info.....Edd

Wow - maybe I need to combine the smooth fish with the smooth background! Actually, I'm not sure whether some of that comes from the Vimeo feed. Smoothing the background - and eliminating some "Double-vision" effect on it - was what I was trying to achieve.

joe m:

Have you tried to compare a Cut Frame only vs. usng the Cut Fields with Mercalli combo you found to be usefull?

I found Cut Fields without Mercalli and Cut Frames without Mercalli to be pretty much identical. They showed a frame, then the next frame with no movement but some blur, then movement and repeat. It depends on the amount of timewarp, but in one case I saw three frames with no movement, then a jump, then two frames, jump, three frames etc.

How big is your clip?

My test clip was 10 secs. long ...

I tried it on two types of action...

...one was a typical movement of a runner... i.e., jogging pace.   No panning... camera was fixed on a tripod.

...the other was a faster moving bike...  With panning on a tripod.

...both were at a shutter speed of 1/500...although the biker could have been at 1/1000 (but, I don't think so).  As a side note, the reason the runner/jogger was take as such a high shutter speed is because I was facing into the sun at the time.

(working from memory) - on the intermediate frames... I only saw some minor blurring changes between using Liquid only vs. Liquid and Mercallie combo on the faster bike clip... and, could not recognize any change in the blurring on the intermediate frames with the runner/joggers. The only difference was the Mercalli combo added jerking... with liquid is was smoother. 

Again... I could be wrong.... when I get to my computer... I look those over and see if what I remember is correct with regard to the particulars regarding intermediate frame blurring/blending.

I am looking for a better way to create slow motion... so, your idea of using Mercalli and Liquid could show promise... it's just I haven't found it using a clips with high shutter speed. BTW, I have not tried your method on lower shutter speeds - yet.

Joe

Whilst the demand for slo-mo in most wedding summary programmes persists, I'm very interested in learning the best way to achieve really slow, really smooth slo-mo without any special camera setting or operation. 

Since the material also has to be used in the main programme where light is often limited (affecting the shutter options) all the suitable techniques must be those specifically and solely involving post-production techniques.  Is Mercalli the only option in terms of software?

If there's enugh interest maybe a sticky could be justified?

Philip