Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:43AM
If anyone has time to look at my early effort at timelapse photography, then this 186MB file:
represents ice melting under normal English winter conditions, with broken cloud and therefore uneven lighting between frames. This results in noticeable flicker that I doubt could be removed by software. (I see that recommended de-flicker options seem to involve Adobe software that I don't use. My software is Sony Movie plus Photoshop 9.)
With this degree of flicker, is it way, way off acceptable?
Thanks for any help.
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:12AM
There's tons and tons of time lapse videos on iStock, so unless a new video is really great, there's not much chance of selling. The quality of your video isn't the greatest, but I haven't seen a video quite like yours, so it might sell because of uniqueness.
Are you adding the move in post? I think it's too much, it make it harder to tell what's going on. A more subtle move would be better.
Is the flicker coming from the clouds or the camera? Did you have all your camera setting on manual?
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:46AM
Thanks for the comments, and for taking time out to look
The camera is set to Av - a constant aperture. I understand that varying the aperture can, of itself, lead to flicker. Also, the time interval runs from before 10am to past midday, so a single manual setting did not seem ideal.
The reflections of the clouds cause an optical effect, of course, but the flicker I refer to is (I think) caused by lighting conditions changing from one shot to the next.
Yes, the move is in post, and it's the only one I've ever done. So plenty of scope for improvement, I'm sure.
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:53AM
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:58AM
^ Thank you, I looked at that, but the software aids to reducing flicker seem to rely on Adobe software that I don't use.
I realise that one option is not to take timelapse in outdoor conditions, but that's just me. I take photos and videos in outdoor conditions.
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:32PM
The move is far too extreme - I would keep it wide or have a very minimal drift.
You've given yourself a painful task with the Network Q logo too - for video it is best to just stick a bit of tape over it.
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:12PM
Thanks for pointing out the logo. It might not be so hard to deal with since, on the original shots, it is in the identical position.
And the point about the pan movement is also taken on board.
Is the flicker acceptable as it is? (It is, of course, much reduced from its original intensity due to post processing.)
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:02PM
The flicker may be acceptable. Zero flicker is always preferred but this one also doesn't seem very bad. Shooting full manual in RAW and using a tool like LRTimelapse helps very well with flicker. But, yeah, you need a software to be able to process RAW into a footage.
The pan makes the footage more about the car than about the ice melt (IMHO). As benjikat mentioned, wider and no to minimal movement would be better perhaps. But that's surely about personal taste.
Furthermore, all above comments are useful. (edited for spaces)
(Edited on 2012-12-19 18:03:06 by funky-data)
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:57AM
^ Thank you.
The original material is in RAW with a width of over 5000 pixels, so there is plenty of scope to widen the shot. I will need to be careful with the odd pedestrian or moving car that appears, but that can be coped with.
The RAW images are batch processed with Canon's DPP software to improve the evenness of the shots.
The posted video is a 1920-pixel-wide extract from the original images. I presume I can easily sample a wider area, so that the downsizing will improve the general quality. Regarding the panning movement, I will certainly look at reducing it or maybe not using it at all. It's tempting, though.
I will see how far Photoshop can help with removing / obscuring the logo.
Mainly, though, I'm pleased that the underlying flicker does not seem too bad, to those of you more practised in the art.
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:48AM
Nice one Whiteway! I really like this timelapse! Was it taken last week in the -6 temperatures? Yeah I suffer a bit of flickering too but I use after effects and tweak the settings a bit.
Did you pan the camera or did you do that in the edit?
Have you played with the levels or saturation at all?MAybe needs a bit of extra bite?
I really like the windscreen part where all the ice melts!
Did you leave your camera outside for 30mins before hand to make it adapt to the cold weather? I've done this in the past so the lens doesn't cloud over etc?
Anyway nice original concept! I personally would think that it will be accepted!
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:34AM
^ Thank you for the appreciation, Spencer. And yes, taken last week.
The pan is in software. Regarding quality, I can add the extra bite at the RAW stage, but I don't want to reduce the overall quality at pixel level. My general approach is to do as little in post production as possible, so that the purchaser has leeway to make their own alterations.
As you suggest, it took about a half-hour for the setup to equilibrate.
I will upload a version incorporating the suggestions here. I hope the usual TV method of obscuring logos will be acceptable, probably using blur rather than pixelation.
Posted Fri Jan 4 12:30PM
Posted Tue Jan 15 1:20AM