pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: time lapse mov using quicktime pro  (Read 16985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 01, 2012, 08:24 »
0
Hi all,

I tried to create a mov video using quicktime pro, but I found that the video is not smooth (it seems some frames are not showing) when i maintain the original size of image (4288x2848)..it plays smooth when it was smaller size of image.

anyone is willing to share? should i resize it to some standard format? thanks!


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2012, 08:41 »
0
I don't go bigger than 1920x1080, the full HD standard.  The clip is probably slowing down because your computer can't cope with it.

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2012, 09:22 »
0
It seems like the problem, i tried to export as the standard format and it plays well..guess photo size is way to high resolution for video..


I don't go bigger than 1920x1080, the full HD standard.  The clip is probably slowing down because your computer can't cope with it.

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2012, 09:26 »
0
The bigger sizes can be used for the cinema but standard and HD TV are much smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions#Films

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2012, 15:50 »
0
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.  :D

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.

« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2012, 16:23 »
0
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.  :D

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.

I don't know if I understand everything correctly what you are doing but I might have some suggestions:

Kick MediaPlayer in the bin - just DON'T use it. It eats system resources and performs very poorly.

Install VLC Player http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html an open source video player that kicks a$$. It buffers frames into your memory so you won't experience any lock-up unless your system is 8+ years old (or just a very weak system).

Secondly, with the "native" resolution of your 20D ("small") you can still get a very nice NTSC crop at 29.97 fps.

After you saved that you take your original resolution and crop it 16:9 (use a Photoshop action for that) and resize them down to 1280*720 for any HD buyers.

That's better than nothing and you deliver straight to both audiences.

However, I do recommend to shoot at a higher resolution to get the Full HD resolution - your NTSC crop will also look more crisp if you size that source material down.

Just my 2 cents.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 16:28 by click_click »

« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2012, 17:12 »
0
I process the images to 1920 x 1080 first and then create the clip.

« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2012, 01:14 »
0
+1.  I think 1920x1080 is going to have much better earnings potential in the long term.  I have no idea where my timelapses are used but I presume it's not just on the internet.  What if someone wants to project a clip in a conference presentation or put them in a TV show?

« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2012, 14:24 »
0
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: [nofollow].

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

Best of luck & Keep Shooting!

« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2012, 08:57 »
0
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!

Out of curiosity, why don't you import the individual JPGs straight into Final Cut?

What's the advantage of creating a mov file first and converting it to ProRes - you can drop all those steps...

Just asking...

« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2012, 11:04 »
0
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!

« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2012, 11:09 »
0
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 had no idea that FCP has such limitations. I'm mostly using Adobe After Effects for this and it will just eat anything I throw at it.

With a click of a button an entire sequence is loaded as a clip.

I thought Apple would be way ahead of this...

« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2012, 11:45 »
0
I had no idea that FCP has such limitations. I'm mostly using Adobe After Effects for this and it will just eat anything I throw at it.

With a click of a button an entire sequence is loaded as a clip.

I thought Apple would be way ahead of this...

I thought they would be too...

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2012, 21:15 »
0
I process the images to 1920 x 1080 first and then create the clip.

I'll just reply to you even though four people recommended the same thing.

OK how? I get rejections for black bars if I try to re-size to anything but 4:3 formats.

And funny thing, VLC locks up while it's loading the files, sometimes won't even show the bigger ones, but MPEG Streamclip seems to work with anything. Windows Movie Maker bits the big one.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
5124 Views
Last post February 13, 2008, 11:19
by w7lwi
2 Replies
7477 Views
Last post January 20, 2010, 11:30
by WarrenPrice
3 Replies
2547 Views
Last post November 30, 2010, 16:23
by madelaide
24 Replies
11913 Views
Last post November 18, 2011, 16:03
by noam
6 Replies
3888 Views
Last post July 06, 2012, 05:28
by qwerty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle