Instead of words, have a look at these two videos:
As you can see, the second video is smoother than the first one. What the software does: It take two frames and creates the necessary frames between those two via blending the first image into the second and as well warp the pixels and tries to estimate the motion the pixels are undergoing. So it is possible to create frames that aren't there in the original video. Keep in mind: It's only a mathematical approximation, so the output results may vary depening on you input footage. It's working quite well for the example I tested it with, but I may not work as well for other things.
The downsides:
It takes time to render! Be prepared to wait and have nice cup of tea / coffee / whatsoever.
It is command-line only. In windows, you can use the Windows PowerShell to navigate to the folder containing the .exe-file of butterflow and then use something like .\butterflow.exe -r 60 .\DJI_0036.MP4 to render the video-file named DJI_0036.MP4 with 60 frames per seconds. This page (https://github.com/dthpham/butte ... cs/Example-Usage.md) gives a quick rundown on the most common scenarios to use it for.
Bonus video:
It made two seconds into an eight second-video (so a fake slow-motion). You can find it here:
As you can see in the bottom left and right corners there are some weird artifacts in the mud after a few seconds in. This is what I was refering to regarding the quality of the output based on the type of input-video.
Bottom line:
The software can help you out if you're mixing material with different framerates - just keep in mind to test the results first!
No luck on my mac,
Error: No available formula with the name "homebrew/science/butterflow”
$ brew search butterflow
==> Searching local taps...
==> Searching taps on GitHub...
==> Searching blacklisted, migrated and deleted formulae...
No formula found for "butterflow".
Thank’s! After goofing with it for a while, I decided to wait and see if homebrew mac install gets fixed.
Meanwhile I use optical flow in da vinci resolve instead.