Timelapse output settings.

GerryQ

Member Joined: Aug 26, 2015 14:43 Messages: 63 Offline

Solved by

Mar 21, 2017 12:00

I've enjoyed watching some really good timelapse videos recently and decided I'd like to have a go myself.

Today, since even a smart phone takes photos in a larger resolution than is required for 4K video output, I have decided to future proof my clips by now producing all such videos in 4K.

I will also produce in 1080p as it is more universally shared. Not everyone has embraced 4K.

I believe (Though I've yet to develop the skill to prove it) , that a great time-lapse starts with a great series of photos.
Several have been linked to from this forum in the past - eg Project Yosemite (Google finds it). In such videos, the majority of the jpegs used would stand alone as fantastic single images.

I currently 'Batch' the photos to size (3840x2160), drop them into PD, set each to have a duration of one frame, then hit the start button. Am I missing any tricks here ?

I live in the UK, am I correct in thinking that 4K, H.264/50mbps/25p as mp4 is the best current output ? I could always convert this file to H.265 at a later date if so required - Or am I better going straight to H.265 to keep quality high ?
I confess I have experience with neither MKV (I believe it can carry sub-titles) nor M2TS. I note they can go to 50p, but is 25 fine for timelapse ?

When I produce the 1080p version, I simply leave the project where it is on the time-line, alter the PD output settings and hit start again. Thus I allow PD to re-size the video for me rather than 'Batch' the photos again. Is this correct ? - I'm reasoning that as I'm going far smaller, the quality of the PD output in 'HD' should be fine. Unless someone knows otherwise?

Now, let's say I want to have a fade from one 'clip/sequence' to another... say circa 1 second duration.
I had believed that I would have to take the 25 jpegs involved and produce an alternative set where the fade takes place (Program not PD) and replace those in the time-line...
My thinking being that I would maintain the quality. Naturally it would be easier to produce the first clip - then the second, finally put both side by side in the time-line and let PD put a fade between them.

Would this 'Double' production produce unwanted artifacts, or does it look fine ?

If any experienced time-lapser out there would like to suggest anything else helpful, that would be great !

Gerry

The Shadowman

Senior Contributor Location: UK Joined: Dec 15, 2014 13:06 Messages: 1831 Offline

Mar 22, 2017 12:30

Quote I've enjoyed watching some really good timelapse videos recently and decided I'd like to have a go myself.

Today, since even a smart phone takes photos in a larger resolution than is required for 4K video output, I have decided to future proof my clips by now producing all such videos in 4K.

I will also produce in 1080p as it is more universally shared. Not everyone has embraced 4K.

I believe (Though I've yet to develop the skill to prove it) , that a great time-lapse starts with a great series of photos.
Several have been linked to from this forum in the past - eg Project Yosemite (Google finds it). In such videos, the majority of the jpegs used would stand alone as fantastic single images.

I currently 'Batch' the photos to size (3840x2160), drop them into PD, set each to have a duration of one frame, then hit the start button. Am I missing any tricks here ?

I live in the UK, am I correct in thinking that 4K, H.264/50mbps/25p as mp4 is the best current output ? I could always convert this file to H.265 at a later date if so required - Or am I better going straight to H.265 to keep quality high ?
I confess I have experience with neither MKV (I believe it can carry sub-titles) nor M2TS. I note they can go to 50p, but is 25 fine for timelapse ?

When I produce the 1080p version, I simply leave the project where it is on the time-line, alter the PD output settings and hit start again. Thus I allow PD to re-size the video for me rather than 'Batch' the photos again. Is this correct ? - I'm reasoning that as I'm going far smaller, the quality of the PD output in 'HD' should be fine. Unless someone knows otherwise?

Now, let's say I want to have a fade from one 'clip/sequence' to another... say circa 1 second duration.
I had believed that I would have to take the 25 jpegs involved and produce an alternative set where the fade takes place (Program not PD) and replace those in the time-line...
My thinking being that I would maintain the quality. Naturally it would be easier to produce the first clip - then the second, finally put both side by side in the time-line and let PD put a fade between them.

Would this 'Double' production produce unwanted artifacts, or does it look fine ?

If any experienced time-lapser out there would like to suggest anything else helpful, that would be great !

Gerry

Hi Gerry

Here in the UK I use the folowing and it work fine for me.

As you say the pics have a 1 frame duration, and I produce to H264 MP4 3840x2160 25. Haven't had any complaints yet

Robert Panny TM10, GH2, GH4,

ynotfish

Senior Contributor Location: N.S.W. Australia Joined: May 08, 2009 02:06 Messages: 9977 Offline

Mar 22, 2017 14:11

Hi Gerry -

The process you're using is sound, & likely to yield solid results.

You've probably also seen the Yosemite Timelapse Documentary, which gives some insight into "the making of". Something to strive for, rather than judge yourself against!

Obviously, with timelapse, there's a difference between setting your timeline framerate to 25 or 50 fps & using the same framerate for output. If the images are set to 00:00:00:01 duration the 50fps version will run twice as fast as the 25fps one... unless you set the image duration to 00:00:00:02 for the 50fps version.

There's a file size/quality advantage with HEVC H.265 because of video bitrate, but it's less universally playable. For timelapse, I doubt the difference would be observable (haven't tested). I'd use AVC H.264.

Production output choices ought to be based on how the timelapse will be viewed. Any image sequence I produce will be UHD, because that's how it will be viewed (UHD TV or monitor).

Some time back, I did some fairly extensive comparisons with different software resizing images. At the start, I was convinced that dedicated image software like PhotoShop, PhotoDirector etc would resize photos better than PDR & therefore land a better result in the final video. My testing did not prove that at all, even when reviewed by people with much younger eyes.

I'm not sure I completely understand your question about fading between sequences. You could do it either way, as long as you stuck to the exact same output profile. There'd be very minimal quality loss in pre-producing segments.

Cheers - Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

GerryQ

Member Joined: Aug 26, 2015 14:43 Messages: 63 Offline

Mar 22, 2017 15:04

Quote Hi Gerry -

The process you're using is sound, & likely to yield solid results.

You've probably also seen the Yosemite Timelapse Documentary, which gives some insight into "the making of". Something to strive for, rather than judge yourself against!

Obviously, with timelapse, there's a difference between setting your timeline framerate to 25 or 50 fps & using the same framerate for output. If the images are set to 00:00:00:01 duration the 50fps version will run twice as fast as the 25fps one... unless you set the image duration to 00:00:00:02 for the 50fps version.

There's a file size/quality advantage with HEVC H.265 because of video bitrate, but it's less universally playable. For timelapse, I doubt the difference would be observable (haven't tested). I'd use AVC H.264.

Production output choices ought to be based on how the timelapse will be viewed. Any image sequence I produce will be UHD, because that's how it will be viewed (UHD TV or monitor).

Some time back, I did some fairly extensive comparisons with different software resizing images. At the start, I was convinced that dedicated image software like PhotoShop, PhotoDirector etc would resize photos better than PDR & therefore land a better result in the final video. My testing did not prove that at all, even when reviewed by people with much younger eyes.

I'm not sure I completely understand your question about fading between sequences. You could do it either way, as long as you stuck to the exact same output profile. There'd be very minimal quality loss in pre-producing segments.

Cheers - Tony

Hi Tony,

Many thanks for the advice.

"Obviously, with timelapse, there's a difference between setting your timeline framerate to 25 or 50 fps & using the same framerate for output. If the images are set to 00:00:00:01 duration the 50fps version will run twice as fast as the 25fps one... unless you set the image duration to 00:00:00:02 for the 50fps version."

I'd thought of that, but then holding the same image for two 'Counts' would effectively be changing the image every 25th of a second anyway - no benefit there ? !

It would be great to make a video time-line with a custom size of 4228 x 2848 (One of the cameras I use for time lapse.)
Naturally, I could then crop that to 3840x2160 and save a lot of messing around with thousands of images... I assume that can't be done ?

The fading of sequences is just to have one clip 'fade' into another rather than a hard cut. I've yet to produce a film with several sequences all put together, but as things progress I may start doing complete 'Short films'

Best regards,

Gerry