MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Free Program For Converting Time Lapse?  (Read 4013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2017, 17:10 »
0
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?

I'm not saying long clips are bad. I'm saying you don't have to to have long clips to sell a lot.

How come this is a top ten bestseller of ALL TIME. One of the best selling stock time lapses in the world.

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/307568/time-lapse-stylish-manhattan-brooklyn-bridge.html

It is 300 frames. And you can't see the cars. WOW!  :D

Length doesn't matter much as long as it's over 10 seconds.


« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2017, 17:12 »
0
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!

...and you will get slower motion if you need 24 fps. The frames are the same. You said it was "easier" and "higher quality" going one way. You are wrong. I am right.  :)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 17:18 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2017, 17:21 »
+1
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!

...and you will get slower motion if you need 24 fps. You said it was "easier" and "higher quality" going one way. You are wrong. I am right.  :)

Of course you are always right!  :-*

But you forget that going from 24 to 29.97 will require you to invent the missing frames, in order to maintain the same speed of motion.
I call this quality loss compared with the 29.97 situation when all necessary frames are there already.

You were also very "right" when you claimed "the number of frames has nothing to do with how much time goes by in reality." lol! :P

Gotta go now! Good luck Mr Right (aka Mr Rocket Scientist) ha, ha! ;D

« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 17:26 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2017, 17:33 »
+1
Actually, going from 29.97 to 24, while maintaining the same speed of motion, looks worse since it will result in a choppy clip due to the missing frames. The motion will jump unnaturally. A quick Google search will tell you that. Almost all American TV is 24 converted to 29.97, with "invented frames". Not perfect there either of course, but it looks smoother. Every single movie is shown that way.

In Europe every movie and most TV shows are just sped up 4% to 25.

Now you have learned that.

But the point was that with clips that aren't real-time you don't have to maintain the speed of motion. You just change the playback speed. You picked the playback speed yourself in the first place while putting together the timelapse. It can just as well be changed.

---

Maybe you should start a timelapse course? Call it:
"Anything under 30 seconds is crap and quality is determined by the number of frames".

I'm sure you will get lots of respect in the timelapse community.  ;D
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 17:47 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2017, 23:47 »
+3
Wow!
Is this a thread about "Free Program For Converting Time Lapse",
or a Cock fight?

« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2017, 01:44 »
0
Wow!
Is this a thread about "Free Program For Converting Time Lapse",
or a Cock fight?

Well, since it's impossible to make a good timelapse under 400 frames, I guess option B.  ;D

ZT just has some truly absurd thoughts about timelapse requirements that he has dreamed up somewhere. He thinks a beginner must start with day-to-night timelapses that are at least 1,200 frames, or don't bother. :P
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 01:56 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #31 on: August 31, 2017, 01:49 »
0
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)

By the way, since you talk so much about quality, what compression are you using? A 50-second 4k clip must be pretty huge in file size then for you? Professionals want ProRes HQ (10-bit), so that would mean 5-6 GB. Or are you compromising on quality?  ;D

By the way, I woke up to a 4k timelapse sale on Shutterstock. Guess how long it was? 7 seconds. 168 frames. Surely this must be impossible?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 02:44 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #32 on: August 31, 2017, 02:30 »
0
This is a bit like people that argue about sensor size with stills.  It really doesn't matter that much, do your own thing and don't think everyone else has to do the same.  I'm quite happy doing timelapses under 400 frames but if people want to do much longer, that's great.  There's no answer to frame rate either, just choose what you want, it seems to make no difference to buyers at all.

« Reply #33 on: August 31, 2017, 02:32 »
0
This is a bit like people that argue about sensor size with stills.  It really doesn't matter that much, do your own thing and don't think everyone else has to do the same.  I'm quite happy doing timelapses under 400 frames but if people want to do much longer, that's great.  There's no answer to frame rate either, just choose what you want, it seems to make no difference to buyers at all.

Precisely.  :D

« Reply #34 on: August 31, 2017, 08:42 »
0
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)


By the way, since you talk so much about quality, what compression are you using? A 50-second 4k clip must be pretty huge in file size then for you? Professionals want ProRes HQ (10-bit), so that would mean 5-6 GB. Or are you compromising on quality?  ;D


I'm back.
This is a sensible comment and a dilemma, indeed.

To clarify my approach: all my HD versions are PhotoJPEG. My 4K versions must be compressed, indeed, to fit within upload limits.

Moreover for 4k, you might be surprised to see that even 400 frames clips might be too large, if made with full quality ProRes. But I use the ProRes export from LRTimelapse to stabilze it in After Effects.

Anyway the trial version of LRTimelapse doesn't allow you 4k.

Here is the statement from the user agreement related to trial license:

Free Evaluation
Free usage of LRT is admitted to a limited extent for testing purposes. The extent of the allowed usage and any restrictions may change at any time upon decision of the Licensor.


As you can see the free version is for testing purposes, not commercial!
Moreover here is an answer from the author:

gwegner 2015-07-03, 23:43
... If you make money with your sequences (there is an explanation how to define this in the license agreement, check out http://lrtimelapse.com/eula ) then you will need the commercial version, this is defined in the license terms. It does not matter, that it's not visible or marked in the video. I felt it was fair from me not to add a watermark to the videos created by the free version, like some other software does.


Therefore coming back to the original question asked in this thread, The OP must know that: LRTimelapse is NOT free for commercial purposes!

I guess we could have both clarified this logical thing from the get go and stopped a long stream of moronic superiority claims right there! My bad!

Let me only add that this forum is full of complaints about stolen photos. Therefore before screaming out loud "Thieves!" it only makes sense to look in the mirror and make sure we only use legal software.

BTW, since you claim having made thousands from time-lapses, not even the "private" license is legally OK for you.
I hope you use a Pro-License. Do you?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 09:55 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #35 on: August 31, 2017, 09:59 »
0
BTW, since you claim having made thousands from time-lapses, not even the "private" license is legally OK for you.
I hope you use a Pro-License. Do you?

I don't use LRTimelapse myself.

I mostly use After Effects, and when I do day-to-night timelapses I use Magic Lantern with sidecar files that smooth out the exposure jumps.

If more deflickering is needed, it is mostly done with Boris FX Flicker Fixer, which I find to be better than the LRTimelapse flicker fixer.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 10:06 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2017, 15:24 »
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!

While we're arguing frame rate ... lol. Technically you could have a two frame timelapse and stretch it out to an hour :/

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ... I start when the sun is still pretty high as well, dial in some settings and just leave it until the battery is dead. lol

« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2017, 15:37 »
0

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ...

Be careful here!
The correctness police will explain you the difference between sunset and day2night time-lapses.  8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!  :P

PS. Get an external 10,000mAh battery pack and you will be able to go on the whole night, or as much as your memory card allows you to.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 15:40 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2017, 18:20 »
0

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ...

Be careful here!
The correctness police will explain you the difference between sunset and day2night time-lapses.  8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!  :P

PS. Get an external 10,000mAh battery pack and you will be able to go on the whole night, or as much as your memory card allows you to.

When capturing the sunset you just kind of guess, day to night I'd probably just aperture priority it and leave it :/

I can't invest any more on camera gear this year, dumped like ... probably a good $600 already and I'm bringing in pennies with the camera. Unless sunsets, product photos and macros start making a ton, my amateur-professional photography career is dead. lol

« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2017, 18:47 »
0
When capturing the sunset you just kind of guess, day to night I'd probably just aperture priority it and leave it :/

I can't invest any more on camera gear this year, dumped like ... probably a good $600 already and I'm bringing in pennies with the camera. Unless sunsets, product photos and macros start making a ton, my amateur-professional photography career is dead. lol

If you're using Canon you can install Magic Lantern and use Auto ETTR with built-in RAW deflickering (very useful) and many other really cool features.

« Reply #40 on: August 31, 2017, 19:38 »
0

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ...

Be careful here!
The correctness police will explain you the difference between sunset and day2night time-lapses.  8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!  :P

PS. Get an external 10,000mAh battery pack and you will be able to go on the whole night, or as much as your memory card allows you to.

When capturing the sunset you just kind of guess, day to night I'd probably just aperture priority it and leave it :/

I can't invest any more on camera gear this year, dumped like ... probably a good $600 already and I'm bringing in pennies with the camera. Unless sunsets, product photos and macros start making a ton, my amateur-professional photography career is dead. lol


You either have to leave the aperture completely open, or use that trick: press the DoF button and slightly rotate the lens to lock the aperture at the desired value. This helps eliminating the annoying flickering made by mechanical imperfections.
Magic lantern is a good option if you use Canon, but I prefer to be in control, so I use an external Android app to control ISO and exposure time, throughout the whole sequence, without touching the camera.
If you do that, you can easily compensate the exposure variations, in post, with the holy grail method (google it)
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 19:47 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #41 on: August 31, 2017, 20:20 »
0

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ...

Be careful here!
The correctness police will explain you the difference between sunset and day2night time-lapses.  8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!  :P

PS. Get an external 10,000mAh battery pack and you will be able to go on the whole night, or as much as your memory card allows you to.

When capturing the sunset you just kind of guess, day to night I'd probably just aperture priority it and leave it :/

I can't invest any more on camera gear this year, dumped like ... probably a good $600 already and I'm bringing in pennies with the camera. Unless sunsets, product photos and macros start making a ton, my amateur-professional photography career is dead. lol


You either have to leave the aperture completely open, or use that trick: press the DoF button and slightly rotate the lens to lock the aperture at the desired value. This helps eliminating the annoying flickering made by mechanical imperfections.
Magic lantern is a good option if you use Canon, but I prefer to be in control, so I use an external Android app to control ISO and exposure time, throughout the whole sequence, without touching the camera.
If you do that, you can easily compensate the exposure variations, in post, with the holy grail method (google it)

That works well on some systems. Won't work on my Nikon but in the past I've used it VERY successfully.  However, you lose metadata with this method and if you're using LRT you won't have any data. 

« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2017, 20:29 »
0

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ...

Be careful here!
The correctness police will explain you the difference between sunset and day2night time-lapses.  8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!  :P

PS. Get an external 10,000mAh battery pack and you will be able to go on the whole night, or as much as your memory card allows you to.

When capturing the sunset you just kind of guess, day to night I'd probably just aperture priority it and leave it :/

I can't invest any more on camera gear this year, dumped like ... probably a good $600 already and I'm bringing in pennies with the camera. Unless sunsets, product photos and macros start making a ton, my amateur-professional photography career is dead. lol


You either have to leave the aperture completely open, or use that trick: press the DoF button and slightly rotate the lens to lock the aperture at the desired value. This helps eliminating the annoying flickering made by mechanical imperfections.
Magic lantern is a good option if you use Canon, but I prefer to be in control, so I use an external Android app to control ISO and exposure time, throughout the whole sequence, without touching the camera.
If you do that, you can easily compensate the exposure variations, in post, with the holy grail method (google it)

That works well on some systems. Won't work on my Nikon but in the past I've used it VERY successfully.  However, you lose metadata with this method and if you're using LRT you won't have any data.
Yes, you lose the aperture info, indeed.
But LRTimelapse is asking for it during the import, so you have to remember it and everything works fine.

« Reply #43 on: September 01, 2017, 00:54 »
+1
Coming back to the free software for Time Lapse, I think that it could be done with DaVinci Resolve

« Reply #44 on: September 01, 2017, 09:16 »
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.

Does he have any software? Like photoshop? After Effects is not the only Adobe product that will create time lapses. You can do it is ps if he/she already has it.

« Reply #45 on: September 01, 2017, 16:34 »
0

My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ...

Be careful here!
The correctness police will explain you the difference between sunset and day2night time-lapses.  8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!  :P

PS. Get an external 10,000mAh battery pack and you will be able to go on the whole night, or as much as your memory card allows you to.

When capturing the sunset you just kind of guess, day to night I'd probably just aperture priority it and leave it :/

I can't invest any more on camera gear this year, dumped like ... probably a good $600 already and I'm bringing in pennies with the camera. Unless sunsets, product photos and macros start making a ton, my amateur-professional photography career is dead. lol


You either have to leave the aperture completely open, or use that trick: press the DoF button and slightly rotate the lens to lock the aperture at the desired value. This helps eliminating the annoying flickering made by mechanical imperfections.
Magic lantern is a good option if you use Canon, but I prefer to be in control, so I use an external Android app to control ISO and exposure time, throughout the whole sequence, without touching the camera.
If you do that, you can easily compensate the exposure variations, in post, with the holy grail method (google it)

Or, you can just set it out there at something like ... iso 100, f/8 and 1/30s put the lens at infinity, set it and forget it ... but, whatever ...

While you guys are arguing about it ... I wouldn't really exceed more than 29.97fps it gives Premiere fits anyway ... not sure about others. When I was trying to squash mine ended up rendering it and then squashing the rendered video ... course, it could be fixed or the whole * thing could be broken on the very next adobe update.

« Reply #46 on: September 01, 2017, 17:41 »
0

Or, you can just set it out there at something like ... iso 100, f/8 and 1/30s put the lens at infinity, set it and forget it ... but, whatever ...

I'm afraid I was not clear enough. Let me try once more:

When you set your aperture at f/8, you don't always get f/8. You get +/- 1/3 stops (maybe even +/- 2/3 stops) because of the unavoidable mechanical imperfections of your diaphragm.
This exposure variation will result in a nasty, annoying flickering. Yeah, you can run the final sequence through a flickering reduction software, but it is much better to eliminate it from its cradle, if you can.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 17:59 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2017, 00:15 »
0
Blender has an integrated video editor.

« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2017, 01:48 »
+1
When you set your aperture at f/8, you don't always get f/8. You get +/- 1/3 stops (maybe even +/- 2/3 stops) because of the unavoidable mechanical imperfections of your diaphragm.
This exposure variation will result in a nasty, annoying flickering. Yeah, you can run the final sequence through a flickering reduction software, but it is much better to eliminate it from its cradle, if you can.

That's true, or you can use a manual aperture lens, or a manual aperture adapter, like when using a Metabones speed booster with a Nikon lens on a Panasonic body. If that's your thing.

By the way, one annoying thing about LRTimelapse. It can actually introduce flicker since it only works with Adobe 2012 processing, which doesn't treat each image equally. It becomes more apparent with heavier tweaks, especially with clarity. Adobe 2010 processing is better for timelapse.

« Reply #49 on: September 02, 2017, 21:57 »
0
LRT seems to work fine for me on  a sony camera with the timelapse app. Its just amazingly time consuming.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
6714 Views
Last post July 11, 2010, 09:13
by Dennis Holmes
24 Replies
6212 Views
Last post November 18, 2011, 16:03
by noam
11 Replies
11429 Views
Last post December 24, 2013, 16:20
by Batman
6 Replies
1337 Views
Last post September 07, 2014, 00:32
by enstoker
25 Replies
35786 Views
Last post January 28, 2015, 08:51
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors