200fps Flowframes vs Davinci Resolve Optical Flow

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
  • Video interpolation comparison of Flowframes with Rife 4.0 and Davinci Resolve 18 Optical Flow Speed Warp.

Комментарии • 21

  • @AeroPhil
    @AeroPhil Год назад +14

    okay...the difference is mindblowing!

  • @_Thumbnail_
    @_Thumbnail_ Год назад +17

    Finde Davinci Speed Warp hier besser. Bei der AI wird der Hintergrund hinter den Radspeichen komisch verzerrt.

  • @user-gk5mb6ml5q
    @user-gk5mb6ml5q Год назад +7

    i test rife 2.3 vs 4.0 and 4.0 faster but glitched 2.3 slower but smoother

  • @darkdeepfire
    @darkdeepfire Месяц назад +2

    Could you make another video for 4.6 RIFE, please?

  • @FukurouYGR
    @FukurouYGR 11 месяцев назад +3

    I have a question.
    Does when should I use "Speed Warp" vs "Enhanced Better" and the other options for interpolation? The result seems a bit random when it comes to the final product, I feel it depends heavily on which kind of video I'm trying to interpolate.

    • @STONJAUS_FILMS
      @STONJAUS_FILMS 20 дней назад

      honestly the fastest frame prediction from davinci is good when the movements are not too big or you are only changing 25% of speed. speed warp for critical shots or for those slowed down too much 70% Or more...
      i triend topaz labs newest model to date and davinci is still better. i use topaz mainly for stabilization >> speed warp first, denoise if needed on davinci then stabilize on topaz for best results
      never heard of rife, is it me or I feel davinci is still better?

  • @OfficialVjRahulForever
    @OfficialVjRahulForever 17 дней назад

    how to make 60 fps optical flow video rendered without distortion lightening in remix song

  • @tdyrc
    @tdyrc 7 месяцев назад

    davinci for the win

  • @DanielAx
    @DanielAx 9 месяцев назад +1

    Have you tried Topaz? It worked really well for Frame Generation in my tests. Better than Davinci by far.

    • @dandar_media
      @dandar_media 8 месяцев назад +3

      I mean it is, but you need to wait like for a whole week to render a 10 seconds clip (rtx 3060)

    • @DanielAx
      @DanielAx 8 месяцев назад +2

      @@dandar_media I use an M2 Pro Macbook, and the render takes about 10-20x the clip duration for me. So not that bad, and I'm happy to wait if I get a better result.

  • @yinyangprotagonist7860
    @yinyangprotagonist7860 Год назад +9

    Speed Warp is better than Flowframes

  • @GamerGee
    @GamerGee Год назад +2

    Which one renders faster

    • @Musica-zp7zn
      @Musica-zp7zn Год назад +3

      Don't know but would you use something which sucks even if it renders in 1 second? lol (flowframe)

    • @metaltrooper8947
      @metaltrooper8947 Год назад +1

      davinci, it doesn't even take a second to load in my pc

    • @Spectrulight
      @Spectrulight 10 месяцев назад

      ​@@metaltrooper8947what's your specs?

    • @metaltrooper8947
      @metaltrooper8947 10 месяцев назад +2

      @@SpectrulightRTX 3060 12gb. 32 gb ram

  • @ThanatosUA
    @ThanatosUA Год назад +6

    In wheels flowframes loses absolutly

    • @saturn_fpv
      @saturn_fpv  Год назад +1

      Yes I agree

    • @ThanatosUA
      @ThanatosUA Год назад

      @@saturn_fpv any update for 4.6 version?

    • @adept_new
      @adept_new 3 месяца назад

      FlowFrames поддерживает разные модели, и в данном примере использовалась Бета-версия, несмотря на то что существует стабильная