user263: DaVinci controls regarding stabilization are very limited, and there seems to be no documentation on how to achieve the following.

Given moderately shaky 100fps footage, one wants to
produce a 30fps timeline,
without slowing footage down (no slow-mo is needed for that bit), but
making the stabilizer use excess framerate to provide better stabilization.

An example of similar approach is various timelapse apps, shooting a normal framerate video and produce a very smooth sped-up outcome.
I have tried using stabilizer on the clip interpreted at 30fps and sped-up 300%, and on the same clip interpreted at 100fps without the speed-up. I have tried cranking up the Smooth parameter and turning off GPU acceleration. However, the outcome doesn’t seem to be improving, which makes me think the Resolve’s stabilizer is not designed to use excess framerate when it’s available.

user3592: The stabilizer doesn’t “care” about the fidelity of time it’s processing.  It looks at the sequence as a whole, calculates the vector magnitude of pixel motion from one frame to the next, and then translates or warps (user choice) each frame in the opposite direction.
A 3000 FPS video looks the same to the stabilizer as a 30 FPS one.
HFR video is great at capturing temporal fidelity, but higher temporal fidelity of a shaky camera only gives you higher-frequency camera rotation noise.
To smooth out the noise, you actually want to blend the frames together.  This is possible in Resolve by blending together nearby frames with motion blur, either through the motion tab of the color page, or as an edit effect.  Last I checked, the color page couldn’t simulate greater than a 360 degree shutter, however.
But all of this happens naturally, in camera, when you use a lower frame rate and longer shutter speed.  So in most cases, using HFR works against you.
You see the effect more commonly in time lapse videos because they are essentially the opposite of HFR ones, and high frequency rotational noise is naturally filtered out because each sample is spaced further apart temporally.

263: <p>DaVinci controls regarding stabilization are very limited, and there seems to be no documentation on how to achieve the following.</p>
<ul>
<li>Given moderately shaky 100fps footage, one wants to</li>
<li>produce a 30fps timeline,</li>
<li>without slowing footage down (no slow-mo is needed for that bit), but</li>
<li>making the stabilizer <em>use excess framerate to provide better stabilization</em>.</li>
</ul>
<p>An example of similar approach is various timelapse apps, shooting a normal framerate video and produce a very smooth sped-up outcome.</p>
<p>I have tried using stabilizer on the clip interpreted at 30fps and sped-up 300%, and on the same clip interpreted at 100fps without the speed-up. I have tried cranking up the Smooth parameter and turning off GPU acceleration. However, the outcome doesn’t seem to be improving, which makes me think the Resolve’s stabilizer is not designed to use excess framerate when it’s available.</p>
 3592: <p>The stabilizer doesn’t “care” about the fidelity of time it’s processing.  It looks at the sequence as a whole, calculates the vector magnitude of pixel motion from one frame to the next, and then translates or warps (user choice) each frame in the opposite direction.</p>
<p>A 3000 FPS video looks the same to the stabilizer as a 30 FPS one.</p>
<p>HFR video is great at capturing temporal fidelity, but higher temporal fidelity of a shaky camera only gives you higher-frequency camera rotation noise.</p>
<p>To smooth out the noise, you actually want to blend the frames together.  This is possible in Resolve by blending together nearby frames with motion blur, either through the motion tab of the color page, or as an edit effect.  Last I checked, the color page couldn’t simulate greater than a 360 degree shutter, however.</p>
<p>But all of this happens naturally, in camera, when you use a lower frame rate and longer shutter speed.  So in most cases, using HFR works against you.</p>
<p>You see the effect more commonly in time lapse videos because they are essentially the opposite of HFR ones, and high frequency rotational noise is naturally filtered out because each sample is spaced further apart temporally.</p>
