LRTimelapse works.

https://lrtimelapse.com

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

Maybe that's why you have not reached 500 euros 
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.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 30, 2017, 08:49

Maybe that's why you have not reached 500 euros 
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? 

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.  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,
Your're welcome!

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.

Quote from: Brightontl on August 30, 2017, 11:35

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! 

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

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 30, 2017, 13:12

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on August 30, 2017, 11:43

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).

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 30, 2017, 16:01

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

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

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 30, 2017, 17:03

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...