What's better for slow motion video, upscaling, or time stretching?

March 8, 2025 7:08 PM

OK, so I got a DJI Osmo Pocket 3, specifically for a project where I want nice-looking super-slow-motion footage. My ideal would be 4K/240fps. Unfortunately, the Pocket 3 can only do either 4K/120fps or 1080p/240fps. I’m mulling the idea of either upscaling the resolution or stretching out the frames per second. All things being equal, which of these solutions would look better?
posted by flod to Media & Arts (4 answers total)

Response by poster: If the answer is, don't do either, dummy, I'm open to that reality, too.
posted by flod at 7:10 PM on March 8

Best answer: Frame interpolation is usually not something you want to do unless you can't avoid it. In the recent past it would have used something like optical flow but nowadays probably AI. In either case it will cause all kinds of artifacts and such if there is a lot of difference between frames or it can't deal with the motion. It has a tendency to look rubber-bandy and fake. (That is to say, shoot at 1080p.)
posted by Rhomboid at 8:56 PM on March 8 [5 favorites]

Best answer: I agree that frame interpolation would look worse than upscaling the frame resolution. The tools for upscaling image size have gotten very good, and starting with a 1080p source isn't shabby. So I would prioritize shooting at the desired FPS, then upscale the resolution afterwards. Having the high FPS also allows you to slow the motion as much or as little as you want for your desired effect or need.
posted by cyclopticgaze at 5:47 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Agree as above, it's easier to fake detail than it is to fake movement.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:49 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]