That is essentially what the editing software is doing when you adjust the speed of a video to 50%. Each frame is essentially repeated once, as described in the video. Instead of frames playing in their normal sequence (1, 2, 3) they play as (1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3).
"Non-jittery" is subjective, but while step printing or its digital equivalent don't introduce artifacts, I still think it looks jittery. It's effectively playing a slower framerate, so by definition the motion won't be as smooth. That's great for dreamlike effect, but it's not quite the smooth slow motion solution people would usually want.
I think the step-printing like effect of essentially playing 24fps back at 12fps is just fine if all you have is a 24fps camera. Optical Flow or other interpolation also has its limitations, but can achieve decent results sometimes.
The best thing to do is not work outside of your limitations. If you have a slow motion shot in mind, and you can't record in higher framerates, and interpolating between frames in After Effects or Premiere doesn't look good, then don't use it. Find another way to tell the story. If smooth slow motion is a crucial plot element to your film, maybe wait to make that film until you have access to the tools necessary.
I know this is a few years old - but cinematographer Dariusz Wolski's name is missing the 'z'.
That's a good point. I didn't notice that personally, but CGI starts from a theoretical foundation instead of a physical one in terms of the way materials interact, motion and physics, lighting, etc. It's hard to get it just right, so I think the artists that do get it right deserve credit for their work. (I say this because I've seen a lot of people with the opinion that CG work isn't as respectable as practical/special effects, as if it's easier and a "magic machine" does all the work automatically.)
I think with practical effects, short of using an actual plane (which would be feasible in some cases, in other cases, not), CG might be a better option than, say, models or other practical methods.
My viewpoint is that CGI/VFX and practical/special effects both have their uses, benefits, and limitations - so a good film will use the right tools to tell a good story, with either method. Perhaps too much confidence is placed in flashy CGI in a lot of films, but I would still disagree with the "CGI makes movies today terrible" assertion, which I see all too often.
Thank you! I have never hated CGI, or blamed its use for terrible blockbuster movies - in fact, I've always been fascinated by it and have been experimenting with it a lot over the past 10 years.
Whenever someone makes the "CGI makes movies bad" argument, I ask them if they've seen Argo. Argo's not my favorite film, but I think it was a good one. I didn't know until after I'd watched it that the exterior shots of the plane in the film are basically all CG, as well as any Iran city imagery.
I wish more people would read this article than watch this awful, awful video blaming CGI for bad movies:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz6UTYzAwi4
This really had me, right up until "powerful magnets" and "your laptop" were included in the same sentence...
This really made me feel a lot - there were some especially powerful moments where the tension and suspense created by the visuals and great soundtrack really added emotional depth to the story. I really liked the cyclical elements of the father/son relationship. I wish the sound levels had been a tiny bit more consistent, and it seems like there were some focus issues, but otherwise this is a fantastic, well-made short.