To better understand what I noticed during my tests, here are two examples, two shots that I regularly use here and there in my scripts.
I try to remain pragmatic because everyone has their own tastes and feelings, I do not judge on the effect that the shot provides but only on what I observe.
The first on the left side, when played on FW 3 we feel a very brief little jolt at each point, so on the whole of the shot the sensations are interesting.
Replaying the same shot on FW 4, it gives the feeling of the line that I made to its right, that is to say very linear and without the intermediate points.
The second on the right side is faster, but same observation.
Played on FW 3 we feel the little jolts on each point, the same played on FW 4 we feel like the curve to its right: smooth and linear without the intermediate points.
So be careful, I’m not saying that FW 4 skips “ALL” the shots that are too strong, but I find that it still skips quite a few, which means that the feeling is no longer the same at all.
It’s up to everyone’s taste, but personally I’m sticking with FW 3.
And I still think that the designers of the Handy should work on a faster engine, some human scenes in a video that are therefore very real because they were done before our eyes, are simply impossible to reproduce with the Handy because of its limitations, so when you create a script you have to cheat, you shorten the shot to gain a little speed, or you skip an action, or you shift in relation to the video.
I think all script writers know this.