I just did one last weekend, still working on it. shot with a 20-D at "small" which is 1728 x 1152 and after processing it, I may reduce it to 720 x 480 for SS. That's the right size so I don't get rejections for "black bars" or top and bottom bars.

I don't know if people need full HD or if the smaller HD is useful. Figure this, if it's huge and takes computing power to display, and that's not online, how will someone use it? Well first thing, they will reduce the size.  

As for SS (since that's the only place I sell except Pond5) I just got a rejection for frame rate which is stupid, because it's an animation. So what will I do? Open the file, save it at 29FPS (identical to what it shows as, but now the same 15FPS will be 29FPS encoded.) If that's confusion and I'm at fault, I mean if it's a 20 second clip at 15FPS and I convert it to 29FPS and save, it's still a 20 second clip! So the whole thing is some nit picking rule about a minimum speed, that doesn't apply to time-lapse anyway.

OK so I play by the rules. My mistake. I should have known better.

The fact that I found a use for the 20-D and can save some time and space and steps by shooting at the smallest resolution, has made things easier. And sometimes I can even watch the time-lapse now, instead of just what you had happen. Jerky, computer lock ups, Windows Media Player hiccups and freezes.

Bigger isn't always better! Save some memory, make processing easier, and maybe make some sales? Good Luck.

Hey mtkang,

I use Quicktime Pro to build my timelapse's along with Final Cut Pro 7. The workflow is as follows:

What I do is assemble my timelapse with quicktime pro and keep it at the native resolution the images were shot in. Export it to an intermediate codec (ProRes or Avid's DNxHD will work fine) at the images original resolution. This will give you a large file with a high-resolution, of course, unless you have a top of the line computer don't expect to even try to playback this file smoothy.

You then take that file and import into your NLE, in my case it's Final Cut Pro 7. I create a 1920x1080 progressive timeline. I throw my large timelapse file that quicktime pro has made, into my timeline. Because our file still has that large resolution we are able to do some pan's and zoom's within our timelapse to create a more interesting composition if desired. You can or even add some effects or color styling. Render your new timelapse and export it at 1920x1080. This will give you a beautiful timelapse that should be able to be played back just fine.

The method I describe above is explained in a wonderful tutorial by Philip Bloom that you can watch it here: .

You can see an example timelapse with effects that I've made using this method by visiting http://julianmeli.com/Aruba-Photo-Fun (the timelapse video is embedded near the bottom middle of the page).

Best of luck & Keep Shooting!

I believe it has to do with not only speed, but limitations within FCP7. Primarily the reason is because there is a cap on how large of a resolution you can make a sequence, Therefore you lose the ability to make the initial time-lapse at full resolution (if your shooting your photos at a high resolution), which you would then lose the ability to add movement to the timelapse (pans and zooms and stuff).

Also FCP7 I don't believe supports importing image sequences, so you'd have to import all the images first and set the duration of the images to one frame, then throw them on a timeline sequentially. The method I described just seems to be a faster, cleaner, more efficient way of doing it. If it's good enough for Philip Bloom, then it's good enough for me!

I process the images to 1920 x 1080 first and then create the clip.