@MH7 Davinci Resolve (is free version, the non free version is Davinci Resolve Studio) has optical flow.

So, it’s DaVince Resolve (non-Studio) that has optical flow (just clarifying)?

The difference between optical flow of Vegas and Davinci Resolve is best seen not when conforming from example 60fps to 24fps but when conforming from 24fps to 60fps or when creating slow motion. Actually when missing frames have to be added/created and not when unnecessary frames have to be removed.

I believe I understand. So, basically, when taking frames away, there’s no real advantage with either Software’s implementation (excluding speed) of optical flow, would that be correct? Are you’re saying that I’d see more of an advantage with DaVinci Resolve if I was wanting to add frames (i.e. 25-50fps), am I understanding accurately?

Indeed, Davinci Resolve (non-Studio) has optical flow and is the version I'm using.

Ah okay. that’s great. I’m surprised that BMD would include such a feature in the free version.

Indeed, that's my experience with optical flow. (Till now I didn't have time to test with the latest Update of Vpro20 build 326, to see if there's any progress)

Ah okay. Thanks for clarifying.

I used optical flow once to smoothen a 2160p25 recording to 2160p50 which was a huge difference with DaVinci vs Vegas, especially in time needed.

I assume you meant verses? That’s pretty interesting. My Sony FDR-AX700, which is a very good 4K video camera by the way, records in 4K25 but not 4K50. So, from your experience, if I wanted to covert my 4K25 to 4K50, using optical flow in DaVinci Resolve, it’d be rather quick?

In your experience, how was the picture quality and the end result?

Also, would converting 2160p25 video to 2160p50 with optical flow remove the common flickering that is often associated and seen with 2160p25 video?

So, it’s DaVince Resolve (non-Studio) that has optical flow (just clarifying)?

Resolve Studio has everything that Resolve free has, but Studio has additional features (e.g. Dolby Vision, VFX, rendering options). Optical Flow is thus in both versions.

Unlike Vegas Pro, daVinci Resolve is compartmentalised (Media, Cut, Edit, Color, Audio, Fusion and Deliver) which is great for multi-user collaborative projects (e.g. a feature film) where specialist teams can work on the project (often via the Cloud) concentrating on their specialised field. There is a significant learning curve to fully using Resolve and I, like others, just use Resolve for one-off tasks thus making Resolve an adjunct to the much easier to use Vegas Pro.

That’s pretty interesting. My Sony FDR-AX700, which is a very good 4K video camera by the way, records in 4K25 but not 4K50. So, from your experience, if I wanted to covert my 4K25 to 4K50, using optical flow in DaVinci Resolve, it’d be rather quick?

In your experience, how was the picture quality and the end result?

Also, would converting 2160p25 video to 2160p50 with optical flow remove the common flickering that is often associated and seen with 2160p25 video?

My first 4K camera had also 25 fps. A test, I did last month for the dutch Vegasforum with a file from that camera: Conforming 25p to 50p with no resampling (is actual frame doubling) so it will still look as 25p, render took 0.30

With frame blending, render took 0:30

With Vegas optical flow, render took 8:20

With Davinci Resolve optical flow, render took only 0:31

Due to my low upload connectivity, I downscaled to 1080, also this forum re-encodes, so the quality you see here is not the actual picture quality.

As I'm looking at my uploaded examples here, they look quite worse, probably due to the re-encoding. I will upload to my drop-box later today.