pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Free Program For Converting Time Lapse?  (Read 4014 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!

« 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


« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2017, 22:46 »
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.

On my 50mm that's the only way I HAVEN'T got flickering ... in manual why would the camera change anything at all when your intervalometer triggers? Internal software change or something?

« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2017, 01:14 »
0
On my 50mm that's the only way I HAVEN'T got flickering ... in manual why would the camera change anything at all when your intervalometer triggers? Internal software change or something?

No, every time you take a picture the aperture closes down to f8 (or whatever you set it to) and then it opens back up to fully open (1.8 on your 50 mm perhaps?). The aperture blades are mechanical and do not close down EXACTLY the same every time = flicker. Just look into your lens and you can see it yourself.

That is why the lens twist method is used, to lock the aperture in place.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 01:17 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2017, 02:29 »
0
You can make timelapse in Darktable - here's an example from 5 years back http://timelapse-darktable.blogspot.qa/ . Darktable runs on Linux but there is now a Windows version available in embryonic form http://www.darktable.org/2017/08/darktable-for-windows/

I think this is quite important, because Darktable is a free alternative to Adobe Lightroom.

If you have a friend who's a moderately competent geek you can set up to run both Linux and Windows from the same computer (I've now got the Linux operating system Ubuntu running on the same machine as Windows 10).

« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2017, 02:53 »
0
On my 50mm that's the only way I HAVEN'T got flickering ... in manual why would the camera change anything at all when your intervalometer triggers? Internal software change or something?


No, every time you take a picture the aperture closes down to f8 (or whatever you set it to) and then it opens back up to fully open (1.8 on your 50 mm perhaps?). The aperture blades are mechanical and do not close down EXACTLY the same every time = flicker. Just look into your lens and you can see it yourself.

That is why the lens twist method is used, to lock the aperture in place.


Old manual focus (and manual aperture) lenses should avoid that problem and are available really cheap. Nikkors seem to be best and almost all will fit to Canon dslrs via an adapter (the 28mm f3.5 has a light baffle that would need removing to avoid fouling the mirror on full frame) There are good Zeiss Jena lenses, too, but you need to be sure your mirror won't clip the back of them if you use full-frame, and they are more likely to get  mechanical problems than the Nikkors.  If you want a really cheap but good zoom lens there is the Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 mm f/4.5 that can be picked up in "like new" condition for much less than $100. Mine gives excellent images with just a tiny bit of CA on a Canon 6D, the only problem with it is that if it is pointed up or down the zoom ring will creep.
For a really good assessment of legacy nikkor lenses check out http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2017, 04:05 »
0
the only problem with it is that if it is pointed up or down the zoom ring will creep.

That's a pretty big problem for timelapse...  ;D

...but I guess a little piece of tape will fix it.  8)

« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2017, 04:37 »
0
the only problem with it is that if it is pointed up or down the zoom ring will creep.

That's a pretty big problem for timelapse...  ;D

...but I guess a little piece of tape will fix it.  8)

Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. Of course, I've only got one sample of that lens and it was made 40 years ago, others might have a tighter barrel. Tape would be one answer.

« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2017, 06:52 »
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.

On my 50mm that's the only way I HAVEN'T got flickering ... in manual why would the camera change anything at all when your intervalometer triggers? Internal software change or something?

I'm sorry, I can't explain better than what I already wrote above. I suggest you do your own research to find out more.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 09:48 by Zero Talent »

wds

« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2017, 08:17 »
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.

On my 50mm that's the only way I HAVEN'T got flickering ... in manual why would the camera change anything at all when your intervalometer triggers? Internal software change or something?

I'm sorry, I can't explain better that what I already wrote above. I suggest you do your own research to find out more.

Remember that with SLRs the camera always opens the diaphragm to full open regardless of your f/# setting so you have a bright image in the viewfinder. As the picture is taken, it stops the opening down (to the f/# you have set) just before opening and closing the shutter, so this full open diaphragm to stopped down diaphragm (to whatever f/# you have set) happens every time a shot is taken. This is what causes the  variation or flickering because the mechanical diaphragm will not close to the exact opening every time. Not a problem for stills because it is close, but flickering will show up in a timelapse due to the small variations in actual diaphragm opening.

« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2017, 14:41 »
+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.

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.

1,200 to 1,800 frames @30fps represents 40-60 seconds. Viewers are not willing to invest that much time in viewing a clip. I produce day to night timelapses of 8-10 seconds. Even then a buyer will often cut it to three seconds or less, especially when using it as a transition between real time video.

Have a look at what is being used in television shows, the timelapses are very short. A good example is the series Breaking Bad. It has hundreds of sequences which are very short but they are very effective.

« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2017, 14:58 »
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.

1,200 to 1,800 frames @30fps represents 40-60 seconds. Viewers are not willing to invest that much time in viewing a clip. I produce day to night timelapses of 8-10 seconds. Even then a buyer will often cut it to three seconds or less, especially when using it as a transition between real time video.

Have a look at what is being used in television shows, the timelapses are very short. A good example is the series Breaking Bad. It has hundreds of sequences which are very short but they are very effective.

Sure! Keep doing that! Our customers must have choices!
Besides, nobody knows better that yourself, what is better for you!

Just remember that, regardless of the duration, LRTimelapse is not free to be used for commercial purposes (wrongly advised on the first reply to OP's question)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 15:40 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2017, 03:41 »
+1
Just remember that, regardless of the duration, LRTimelapse is not free to be used for commercial purposes (wrongly advised on the first reply to OP's question)

Not at all wrongly advised. Can you please point out to me where OP wrote that his friend was going to make timelapses for commercial purposes?

I think you need to read posts more carefully or you might miss something.

« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2017, 06:58 »
0
Just remember that, regardless of the duration, LRTimelapse is not free to be used for commercial purposes (wrongly advised on the first reply to OP's question)

Not at all wrongly advised. Can you please point out to me where OP wrote that his friend was going to make timelapses for commercial purposes?

I think you need to read posts more carefully or you might miss something.

Ok. I give you that.
Nevertheless, I believe it is only fair to assume that asking the question on a microstock forum denotes the intent to use the product for microstock.

And if you are honest with yourself, you should admit that this is exactly what you thought.

Anyway, in the best case for you, your advice was not technically wrong, but misleading.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:01 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2017, 07:03 »
0
Ok. I give you that.
Nevertheless, I believe it is only fair to assume that asking the question on a microstock forum denotes the intent to use the product for microstock.

And if you are honest with yourself, you should admit that this is exactly what you thought.

Anyway, in the best case, your advise was misleading.

Just admit you were wrong and went on a train of thought to the planet Insania, involving minimum frame requirements, sunsets lasting 3 hours and so much else. Out of the blue really. I doubt a beginner who doesn't even know how to put together a timelapse would start with the holy grail with 1,600 pictures...  :) I'm actually a bit surprised you didn't post that without a full-frame DSLR with 40mp+, don't even bother trying to make a timelapse.

You see, many people at this forum have friends who are not interested in pursuing a commercial career in photography or videography. They might just want to do it for fun (hence willing to use free software).

And no, that is not exactly what I thought. I'm sure anyone interested in the software can read the license agreement and decide for themselves. :D
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:13 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2017, 07:14 »
0
Ok. I give you that.
Nevertheless, I believe it is only fair to assume that asking the question on a microstock forum denotes the intent to use the product for microstock.

And if you are honest with yourself, you should admit that this is exactly what you thought.

Anyway, in the best case, your advise was misleading.

Just admit you were wrong and went on a train of thought to the planet Insania, involving minimum frame requirements, sunsets lasting 3 hours and so much else. Out of the blue really. I doubt a beginner who doesn't even know how to put together a timelapse would start with the holy grail with 1,600 pictures...  :)

You see, many people at this forum have friends who are not interested in pursuing a commercial career in photography or videography. They might just want to do it for fun (hence willing to use free software).

And no, that is not exactly what I thought. I'm sure anyone interested in the software can read the license agreement and decide for themselves. :D
Sure, that's exactly what your advice was about, lol!

« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2017, 07:15 »
0
Sure, that's exactly what your advice was about, lol!

I'm sure you're a good photographer, and I don't doubt one second that your timelapses are great and sell, but reading comprehension might not be your forte.

This is exactly what my advice was:

Information request: Free software to put together timelapse. (no other information specified, other than that the friend would like to try timelapse, so they haven't tried it before).
Answer (one among others): LRTimelapse.

That is all.  :)
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:20 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2017, 07:21 »
0
Sure, that's exactly what your advice was about, lol!

I'm sure you're a good photographer, but reading comprehension might not be your forte.

This is exactly what my advice was:

Question: Free software to put together timelapse. (no other information specified, other than the assumption the friend is a beginner).
Answer (one among others): LRTimelapse.

That is all.  :)

That's exactly what I said:
"Sure, that's exactly what your advice was about, lol!"

Why do you assume I was sarcastic?

Technically, I was not.

That's all. Lol!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:42 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2017, 07:22 »
+1
Information request: Free software to put together timelapse. (no other information specified, other than that the friend would like to try timelapse, so they haven't tried it before).
Answer (one among others): LRTimelapse.

Even if you use the free version of LRTimelapse, you still need Lightroom....

« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2017, 07:33 »
0
Even if you use the free version of LRTimelapse, you still need Lightroom....

No. You don't.

You need an image sequence. How you obtain that is up to you.

Just tried it, to confirm.

It's fun arguing about pointless details, but at least just do a tiny bit of research before posting whatever comes to mind.  :D
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:50 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2017, 09:02 »
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.

1,200 to 1,800 frames @30fps represents 40-60 seconds. Viewers are not willing to invest that much time in viewing a clip. I produce day to night timelapses of 8-10 seconds. Even then a buyer will often cut it to three seconds or less, especially when using it as a transition between real time video.

Have a look at what is being used in television shows, the timelapses are very short. A good example is the series Breaking Bad. It has hundreds of sequences which are very short but they are very effective.

I shoot 30-45 second time lapses all the time.  Generally, if there's good variance in lighting I cut it into 2-3 sections 10-12 second clips and upload that way.  But I would not waste my time shooting & uploading a 45 second time lapse of a static shot of clouds moving over a mountain.  That is a 5-10 seconder at best. 


 

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