MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Free Program For Converting Time Lapse?  (Read 3946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 28, 2017, 16:01 »
0
I shoot a low of time lapse and use After Effects for processing the videos. But I have a friend who would like to try time lapse, but doesn't have access to After Effects. Can anyone recommend a free program for converting photo sequences in to video files. Thanks.

 


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2017, 16:20 »
0
LRTimelapse works.

https://lrtimelapse.com

« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2017, 19:38 »
0
LRTimelapse works.

https://lrtimelapse.com

LRTimelapse is NOT free (except for the trial version able to use only 400 frames)

A professional license (necessary if you have more >500 euros revenue from selling time-lapses) will cost you 248 euros.

« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2017, 00:54 »
+1
Lightroom is not free either.

« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2017, 03:40 »
+1
LRTimelapse is NOT free (except for the trial version able to use only 400 frames)

Only 400 frames? I don't have a single timelapse / hyperlapse for sale as stock longer than 400 frames. For a beginner who doesn't even have a tool to put together an image sequence I would say that is plenty.  :)

And by the time they have made even close to 500 they will have realized that After Effects is the way to go.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 03:43 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2017, 08:49 »
0
LRTimelapse is NOT free (except for the trial version able to use only 400 frames)

Only 400 frames? I don't have a single timelapse / hyperlapse for sale as stock longer than 400 frames. For a beginner who doesn't even have a tool to put together an image sequence I would say that is plenty.  :)

And by the time they have made even close to 500 they will have realized that After Effects is the way to go.

Maybe that's why you have not reached 500 euros  :P
To properly capture a sunset or a sunrise, stretching over 2 hours in real time, you need something between 1,200 to 1,800 frames.

« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2017, 09:37 »
+2
Maybe that's why you have not reached 500 euros  :P
To properly capture a sunset or a sunrise, stretching over 2 hours in real time, you need something between 1,200 to 1,800 frames.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?  :o

I have reached many thousands of euros with my timelapses and hyperlapses, but you don't seem to know how to make one.

You can capture a year, seasons changing and all with 12 frames if you want. That would be a short timelapse of half a second. Or you could capture a year with 365 frames, that's 1 per day, for 15 seconds of video.

You can capture a sunset with 2 frames (very short timelapse). You can capture a sunset with 200 frames. You can capture one with 7,200 frames - that's one per second over two hours. Or you can capture one over 30 minutes with 21,600 frames. That's only 2x real-time speed though.

My last star timelapse was 360 frames over 3 hours.

To sum up: 400 frames is 16.7 seconds of footage which is more than plenty for almost any use.

And by the way, you must live on the North Pole if your sunset lasts 2 hours.  ;D 20 minutes is enough at the equator.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 10:09 by increasingdifficulty »

wds

« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2017, 10:15 »
0
If you  already have Photoshop, that can do it for you.

« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2017, 11:22 »
0
Maybe that's why you have not reached 500 euros  :P
To properly capture a sunset or a sunrise, stretching over 2 hours in real time, you need something between 1,200 to 1,800 frames.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?  :o

I have reached many thousands of euros with my timelapses and hyperlapses, but you don't seem to know how to make one.

You can capture a year, seasons changing and all with 12 frames if you want. That would be a short timelapse of half a second. Or you could capture a year with 365 frames, that's 1 per day, for 15 seconds of video.

You can capture a sunset with 2 frames (very short timelapse). You can capture a sunset with 200 frames. You can capture one with 7,200 frames - that's one per second over two hours. Or you can capture one over 30 minutes with 21,600 frames. That's only 2x real-time speed though.

My last star timelapse was 360 frames over 3 hours.

To sum up: 400 frames is 16.7 seconds of footage which is more than plenty for almost any use.

And by the way, you must live on the North Pole if your sunset lasts 2 hours.  ;D 20 minutes is enough at the equator.

Thanks for the lecture and for stating the obvious. You can, of course, create a "time-lapse" made of 12 frames. But I would call it GIF, rather than timelapse  ;)
Good luck in selling that, anyway!

And when it comes to sunset timelapses, if you really want to capture it properly, you must start when the sun is up and finish it when it is really dark. You want to capture a decent amount of frames for each phase of the transition day->sunset->dusk->night, and that, my friend, takes ~2 hours, even at the equator.

Maybe you should try this, one sunny day, :P
Your're welcome!

« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 11:30 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2017, 11:35 »
+1
300 frames give you approximately 12.5 seconds of timelapse, assuming you are shooting at 24 fps.
If you are shooting at 30 fps it will obviously give you 10 seconds.
Those 12.5 seconds in real life will be 5 minutes if you shoot every seconds (300 seconds/60 minutes per minute), 1 hour if you shoot a shot every 12 seconds, 2 hours if you shoot every 24 seconds. At one shot per minute it is 5 hours.
A day to night transition (2 to 3 hours in real life) may very well be done with 300 shots, although personally I get better result and with about 600-800 shots

« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2017, 11:43 »
0
Thanks for the lecture and for stating the obvious. You can, of course, create a "time-lapse" made of 12 frames. But I would call it GIF, rather than timelapse  ;)
Good luck in selling that, anyway!

And when it comes to sunset timelapses, if you really want to capture it properly, you must start when the sun is up and finish it when it is really dark. You want to capture a decent amount of frames for each phase of the transition day->sunset->dusk->night, and that, my friend, takes ~2 hours, even at the equator.

Maybe you should try this, one sunny day, :P
Your're welcome!

You're welcome for the lecture, but you don't seem to be paying attention unfortunately...

1,200 frames is still 50 seconds... 1,800 frames is 75 seconds... Most timelapses sold are under 10-15 seconds. And when used in a film/project they are usually only 1-3 seconds (that's 24-72 frames for you).

What don't you understand? The number of frames has nothing to do with how much time goes by in reality.

And when it comes to sunset timelapses, if you really want to capture it properly, you must start when the sun is up and finish it when it is really dark. You want to capture a decent amount of frames for each phase of the transition day->sunset->dusk->night, and that, my friend, takes ~2 hours, even at the equator.

That is a day-to-night timelapse (holy grail), not a sunset timelapse. At the equator, a sunset lasts around 10-15 minutes.

Edit: as I was writing, I sold another timelapse on Shutterstock. It was 240 frames.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 12:07 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2017, 12:10 »
0
300 frames give you approximately 12.5 seconds of timelapse, assuming you are shooting at 24 fps.
If you are shooting at 30 fps it will obviously give you 10 seconds.
Those 12.5 seconds in real life will be 5 minutes if you shoot every seconds (300 seconds/60 minutes per minute), 1 hour if you shoot a shot every 12 seconds, 2 hours if you shoot every 24 seconds. At one shot per minute it is 5 hours.
A day to night transition (2 to 3 hours in real life) may very well be done with 300 shots, although personally I get better result and with about 600-800 shots

Of course it can be done. But it will not look good and it will not sell often.
I am happy to see my competition believing that 400 frames are enough for most jobs.
By all means, keep doing that, but then please don't come here to complain about poor sales!  :D
As always, you get what you pay for.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 12:16 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2017, 12:14 »
+2
300 frames give you approximately 12.5 seconds of timelapse, assuming you are shooting at 24 fps.
If you are shooting at 30 fps it will obviously give you 10 seconds.
Those 12.5 seconds in real life will be 5 minutes if you shoot every seconds (300 seconds/60 minutes per minute), 1 hour if you shoot a shot every 12 seconds, 2 hours if you shoot every 24 seconds. At one shot per minute it is 5 hours.
A day to night transition (2 to 3 hours in real life) may very well be done with 300 shots, although personally I get better result and with about 600-800 shots

Of course it can be done. But it will not look good and it will not sell often.
I am happy to see my competition believing that 400 frames are enough for most jobs.
By all means, keep doing that, but then please don't come here to complain about poor sales!  :D
Who is complaining about poor sales?
And BTW, what . are you talking about?
This forum has become the most boring website on the net. Are there only childish bitching people left around here?

« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2017, 12:19 »
0
Of course it can be done. But it will not look good and it will not sell often.
I am happy to see my competition believing that 400 frames are enough for most jobs.
By all means, keep doing that, but then please don't come here to complain about poor sales!  :D

I guess you are trolling...

Here is the 3rd most sold timelapse on Shutterstock by the way, 390 frames! I guess miracles do happen!

https://www.shutterstock.com/sv/video/clip-3775625-stock-footage-northern-lights-aurora-borealis-reflected-on-a-lake-timelapse-in-iceland.html?src=search/fiRd3ZyLouMV7VJcXh5WLQ:1:2/3p

#7 sold timelapse on Pond5 - 360 frames:

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/25426822/china-shanghai-day-night-time-lapse-please-search-chinahdv-s.html

#17 most sold timelapse ever on Pond5 - and a sunset - 336 frames:

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/11350065/timelapse-sunset.html

One of the better timelapse films out there - not a single clip over 400 frames:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scxs7L0vhZ4

---

And who's complaining about sales? I sell timelapses every day.

Zero Talent, 2017: "Timelapses shorter than 400 frames won't look good and won't sell";D Now that's an informed statement!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 13:04 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2017, 13:12 »
+1
What don't you understand? The number of frames has nothing to do with how much time goes by in reality.


Hmm, I'm afraid you are missing a point!

The number of frames has a LOT to do with how much time goes by in reality. You are restricted not only by the duration of the whole event (eg sunset or day2night, potatoes or potatos) but also by the velocity of the objects travelling through your frame (therefore the focal length matters, as well)

If you only shoot stars, then 30s is more than OK.
If you shoot blooming flowers or growing plants, you can go way beyond that.

If you have boats on a river or cars on a road, trying to force the interval between frames at >10s will result in nasty flickering, since you might only capture one or two instance of that boat or car passing by. Adjusting the interval between shots to the speed, will allow you to capture enough samples of that moving object rendering a smooth motion.

And motion smoothness is what differentiate men from boys.

So reality matters as much as your basic arithmetic lessons nobody asked for!

Again, you always get what you pay for!




« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 13:17 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2017, 13:20 »
0
What don't you understand? The number of frames has nothing to do with how much time goes by in reality.


Hmm, I'm afraid you are missing a point!

The number of frames has a LOT to do with how much time goes by in reality. You are restricted not only by the duration of the whole event (eg sunset or day2night, potatoes or potatos) but also by the velocity of the objects travelling through your frame (therefore the focal length matters, as well)

If you only shoot stars, then 30s is more than OK.
If you shoot blooming flowers or growing plants, you can go way beyond that.

If you have boats on a river or cars on a road, trying to force the interval between frames at >10s will result in nasty flickering, since you might only capture one or two instance of that boat or car passing by. Adjusting the interval between shots to the speed, will allow you to capture enough samples of that moving object rendering a smooth motion.

And motion smoothness is what differentiate men from boys.

So reality matters as much as your basic arithmetic lessons nobody asked for!

Again, you always get what you pay for!

May I introduce to you: ND filters (separating talent from zero talent).  ;)

For smooth timelapses, a shutter speed of half the interval is the way to go. That will take your boat on a 10-second interval timelapse and make it disappear or turn it into a smooth line. Limiting yourself to short intervals because there are vehicles in the shot is a very narrow-minded way to work.

So what do you do with your 1,200 frames? You refuse to answer the question. You speed it up? Or upload 50-second timelapses?

CLEAR QUESTION:

DO YOU UPLOAD 50-SECOND TIMELAPSES? Yes or no.

---

By the way - Sunset = when the sun is a little bit above the horizon until it goes below. No, it's not the same as day to night...

Your idea that more than 400 frames are needed for a timelapse to sell is still very, very, very strange...

(edit: another one just sold, 9 seconds = 216 frames, sold for the 20th time).
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 15:33 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2017, 16:01 »
0
What don't you understand? The number of frames has nothing to do with how much time goes by in reality.


Hmm, I'm afraid you are missing a point!

The number of frames has a LOT to do with how much time goes by in reality. You are restricted not only by the duration of the whole event (eg sunset or day2night, potatoes or potatos) but also by the velocity of the objects travelling through your frame (therefore the focal length matters, as well)

If you only shoot stars, then 30s is more than OK.
If you shoot blooming flowers or growing plants, you can go way beyond that.

If you have boats on a river or cars on a road, trying to force the interval between frames at >10s will result in nasty flickering, since you might only capture one or two instance of that boat or car passing by. Adjusting the interval between shots to the speed, will allow you to capture enough samples of that moving object rendering a smooth motion.

And motion smoothness is what differentiate men from boys.

So reality matters as much as your basic arithmetic lessons nobody asked for!

Again, you always get what you pay for!

May I introduce to you: ND filters (separating talent from zero talent).  ;)

For smooth timelapses, a shutter speed of half the interval is the way to go. That will take your boat on a 10-second interval timelapse and make it disappear or turn it into a smooth line. Limiting yourself to short intervals because there are vehicles in the shot is a very narrow-minded way to work.

So what do you do with your 1,200 frames? You refuse to answer the question. You speed it up? Or upload 50-second timelapses?

CLEAR QUESTION:

DO YOU UPLOAD 50-SECOND TIMELAPSES? Yes or no.

---

By the way - Sunset = when the sun is a little bit above the horizon until it goes below. No, it's not the same as day to night...

Your idea that more than 400 frames are needed for a timelapse to sell is still very, very, very strange...

(edit: another one just sold, 9 seconds = 216 frames, sold for the 20th time).

I only have very few timelapses under 30 seconds (some starry skies)
My average is probably around 40-50s.
My customers can select the section they like from my clips. If they only like the 10-15 minutes of the actual sunset, they have this option. This flexibility makes my timelapse among the most popular on their categories.

Most of my timelapses have between 1200 and 1800 frames and I regularly code them with 29.97 fps.
It is easier to drop down to 24fps with no quality loss, than to upgrade from 24 to 29.97, if needed.

Good luck, my smart friend, using ND filters when it gets dark. If a few stops are fine during the day, when the night falls you'll end-up with a very long exposure and no more timelapse. However, I use grad filters from time to time.

And I don't want that boat to disappear. Nor the car. Nor the people moving around.
This motion adds a special flavor to your otherwise boring sunset.

Do you get me now, my smart friend? Or all this is new and still "very, very, very strange" for you?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 16:03 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2017, 16:06 »
0
Most of my timelapses have between 1200 and 1800 frames and I regularly code them with 29.97 fps.
It is easier to drop down to 24fps with no quality loss, than to upgrade from 24 to 29.97, if needed.

You do realize that since timelapses aren't real-time you don't do any frame rate conversions, right? You just speed up or down to 24 or 29.97 or whatever you want. There is zero quality loss from 24 to 30. Zero quality loss from 30 to 24. Or 25. Or whatever you want really. This is basic. It's exactly as easy to go up or down.

Frame rate conversions are only relevant if you need to keep the real-time motion of a clip. But I'm sure you already knew this and so much else.  ;)

Anyway, good luck!

I guess now we know that no timelapse can sell if it's under 30 seconds or so. Maybe do some market research and learn?  :)

It's been fun. But I'm too tired to talk to a wall. I sell. You sell. Great! Maybe it's not the number of frames that sell... Have you ever thought about that?

---

Also, did you know that not every timelapse is a day-to-night timelapse? It seems almost impossible to believe, but I think it's true. A 10-stop ND during the day is very useful for turning traffic into a smooth blur. In fact, one of my bestsellers is a shot just like that.



My customers can select the section they like from my clips. If they only like the 10-15 minutes of the actual sunset, they have this option. This flexibility makes my timelapse among the most popular on their categories.

Isn't it strange that 90% of all bestseller timelapses are under 30 seconds, most are around 10-15, and many ALL-TIME bestsellers are 6-10 seconds long. I think your theory needs some work.  ;D

They don't buy the clips because they're long, they buy them because they like the content. They will only use a few seconds anyway. If you want to do long clips, that's absolutely fine, and I'm sure you make nice ones, but saying that under 400 frames doesn't work is just ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 16:48 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2017, 16:38 »
+1
Most of my timelapses have between 1200 and 1800 frames and I regularly code them with 29.97 fps.
It is easier to drop down to 24fps with no quality loss, than to upgrade from 24 to 29.97, if needed.

You do realize that since timelapses aren't real-time you don't do any frame rate conversions, right? You just speed up or down to 24 or 29.97 or whatever you want. There is zero quality loss from 24 to 30. Zero quality loss from 30 to 24. Or 25. Or whatever you want really.

Frame rate conversions are only relevant if you need to keep the real-time motion of a clip. But I'm sure you already knew this and so much else.

Anyway, good luck!

I guess now we know that no timelapse can sell if it's under 30 seconds or so. Maybe do some market research and learn?  :)

It's been fun. But I'm too tired to talk to a wall. I sell. You sell. Great! Maybe it's not the number of frames that sell... Have you ever thought about that?

---

Also, did you know that not every timelapse is a day-to-night timelapse? It seems almost impossible to believe, but I think it's true. A 10-stop ND during the day is very useful for turning traffic into a smooth blur. In fact, one of my best-sellers is a shot just like that.

You continue to state the obvious and you have hard time accepting different opinions.

What puzzles me is that you got tired defending your 400 frame threshold continuously stating that more is not necessary.
This makes Gunther, (LRTimelapse creator) a fool for giving everyone this option for free. Just think about this. BTW, I hope you got the pro-license from him.

Remember, I never said you can't sell those tiny, GIF like, timelapses.
I only said you have better chances with a serious quality product. It is your right to disagree  :o. As I said, I'm very happy to know that you will continue to stick to your max 400 principle!  8)

But the OP deserves to know better and make an informed decision.

You always get what you pay for. The rest is only the noise you make bragging about simple things most of us know already.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 16:43 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2017, 16:42 »
+1
I don't stick to any number of frames. I can do 800, I can do 240. I can do 3,000.

This is a BEGINNER starting out and you're saying 400 is not enough. That is just ridiculous.

You don't even know the basics of frames and frame rates.

Is every clip in this film complete crap?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scxs7L0vhZ4

They are all under 400 frames.

« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2017, 16:59 »
0
You don't even know the basics of frames and frame rates.

Ha, ha! You really do think you are the rocket scientist, don't you!  8)
If figuring out simple things like frames, fps, intervals might have been challenging for some, rest assured it is not rocket science!

You are very funny when you get angry, do you know that?  ;D

« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2017, 17:01 »
0
Well, you thought you needed to convert the frame rate of non-real-time footage, so...

No, you just change the playback speed.

Anyway, are all these clips (under 400 frames) crap?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scxs7L0vhZ4

« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2017, 17:03 »
0
Well, you thought you needed to convert the frame rate of non-real-time footage, so...

No, you just change the playback speed.

Anyway, are all these clips (under 400 frames) crap?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scxs7L0vhZ4

Not at all! You thought I thought! Major difference! Again, no rocket science my friend!
Give buyers the chance to select the parts the like from a longer sequence and you'll sell that sequence a lot! That's all I'm saying! How hard it is to understand that?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 17:05 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2017, 17:04 »
0
It is easier to drop down to 24fps with no quality loss, than to upgrade from 24 to 29.97, if needed.

This says otherwise... You think that there is a difference (in quality or ease) going from 29.97 to 24 compared to 24 to 29.97 when it comes to timelapse.

« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2017, 17:09 »
0
It is easier to drop down to 24fps with no quality loss, than to upgrade from 24 to 29.97, if needed.

This says otherwise...

No it doesn't!
You will not get what you saw when you bought the clip. You will get a faster motion! Your already tiny clip will shrink even further!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
6711 Views
Last post July 11, 2010, 09:13
by Dennis Holmes
24 Replies
6204 Views
Last post November 18, 2011, 16:03
by noam
11 Replies
11361 Views
Last post December 24, 2013, 16:20
by Batman
6 Replies
1334 Views
Last post September 07, 2014, 00:32
by enstoker
25 Replies
35613 Views
Last post January 28, 2015, 08:51
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors