What's going on with my footage...

[brett8883]

What resolutions is it? How is stabilizing accomplished?

It’s the same resolution but your ability to edit levels and color will be far superior. Resolve has a stabilization function just like FCPX but I find you have to change to stabilization method to “translation” to get the best stabilization on drone footage.

 

[Dale D]

Let me jump into this discussion!

All of this talk about Lightroom, DaVinci, and Final Cut Pro makes my head swim. Since 2005 I have been using LRTimelapse, a software program designed especially for timelapse. It utilizes complex algorithms, Lightroom, and is designed by a brilliant German developer, Gunther Wegner. I urge you to investigate his website.
www.LRtimelapse.com
Watch the videos. There is a free program which I used for several years before buying the license which was not expensive. The program deals with flicker, and is designed to use RAW or DNG files for high quality videos. (DNG is the Adobe standard for digital negative).

LRTimelapse 5 provides the most comprehensive solution for time lapse editing, keyframing, grading and rendering. No matter if on Windows or Mac, or which camera you use: LRTimelapse will take your time lapse results to the next level.

Watch the basic tutorials under the tutorials heading. www.lrtimelapse.com

Once you learn this simple program you will never go back. I'll be happy to attach examples of my work using this technique.Here is an example.

Dale

 

[jowlymonster]

Hah, I was about to mention LRTimelapse too - not used it with footage from my drone yet, but been using it with my Mirrorless for a while. I keep getting tempted to go for the paid version to get > 400 frames and the motion blur, but not /quite/ gotten around to it...

 

[Dale D]

Hah, I was about to mention LRTimelapse too - not used it with footage from my drone yet, but been using it with my Mirrorless for a while. I keep getting tempted to go for the paid version to get > 400 frames and the motion blur, but not /quite/ gotten around to it...

James- I just spent a few moments on your wonderful Youtube site- watched the Neowise clip and several others. Great stuff. We are brethren of the night skies. Love to find dark sites and do Milky Ways, etc.

The paid version of LRTimelapse is cheap enough and it is a one time expense for lifetime, with free upgrades. This software has changed my life! I plan all of my travels around tiimelapse photography.

 

[itsneedtokno]

Let me jump into this discussion!

All of this talk about Lightroom, DaVinci, and Final Cut Pro makes my head swim. Since 2005 I have been using LRTimelapse, a software program designed especially for timelapse. It utilizes complex algorithms, Lightroom, and is designed by a brilliant German developer, Gunther Wegner. I urge you to investigate his website.
www.LRtimelapse.com
Watch the videos. There is a free program which I used for several years before buying the license which was not expensive. The program deals with flicker, and is designed to use RAW or DNG files for high quality videos. (DNG is the Adobe standard for digital negative).

LRTimelapse 5 provides the most comprehensive solution for time lapse editing, keyframing, grading and rendering. No matter if on Windows or Mac, or which camera you use: LRTimelapse will take your time lapse results to the next level.

Watch the basic tutorials under the tutorials heading. www.lrtimelapse.com

Once you learn this simple program you will never go back. I'll be happy to attach examples of my work using this technique.Here is an example.

Dale

Hah, I was about to mention LRTimelapse too - not used it with footage from my drone yet, but been using it with my Mirrorless for a while. I keep getting tempted to go for the paid version to get > 400 frames and the motion blur, but not /quite/ gotten around to it...

So I was also going to mention LRtimelapse but have no experience with it.


What separates the paid and free... I thought there was only a paid version or I would have used that long ago.

Most of my Hyperlapses are around 300 frames, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I always like to edit the DNG.

 

[jowlymonster]

James- I just spent a few moments on your wonderful Youtube site- watched the Neowise clip and several others. Great stuff. We are brethren of the night skies. Love to find dark sites and do Milky Ways, etc.

The paid version of LRTimelapse is cheap enough and it is a one time expense for lifetime, with free upgrades. This software has changed my life! I plan all of my travels around tiimelapse photography.

Thanks! I wish the weather and light-pollution where I live made night-sky work easier, but sadly not...
I'm sure I will upgrade sooner or later, if nothing else, it'll give me a reason to do more timelapse work

 

[Dale D]

So I was also going to mention LRtimelapse but have no experience with it.


What separates the paid and free... I thought there was only a paid version or I would have used that long ago.

Most of my Hyperlapses are around 300 frames, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I always like to edit the DNG.

Cody:

Most of my time lapses,( at 24 frames per minute), are 350 exposures.For my motion time lapses (I use a slider) I find it too jerky and have to go to 400 to 450 exposures to get a smooth video. (Dynamic Peception gear).

The free version is really all you need. I've used it for years.The paid version allows more perks but you can evaluate that after using the free version for a while. Do yourself a favor and go to Gunther's website and watch the tutorials and his own videos which are amazing. www.LRTimelapse.com
By the way, the support on his website is good. He personally answers all of my questions within 24 hours.

Dale

 

[jowlymonster]

The most obvious free version limitations are 400 images for a segment, and 1080P max output.
TBH, the 400 images isn't too bad- most films benefit from shorter clips cut together rather than one long clip (at 25fps with the max 400 frames, that's still 16 seconds playback) - 4K never bothered me as I only had a 1080P TV, but I've now upgraded, and the drone records 4k as does my mirrorless... so I'm likely to "feel" this limitation soon. You could probably work around it by using LRTimelapse to do all the heavy editing/syncing, then export all the frames and put them together into a movie in something else like Resolve?

Full feature comparison is here: LRTimelapse | Features

 

[rhberg]

Another approach (which I use) is LRTimelapse, which works in conjunction with Lightroom. LRTL uses keyframes to adjust DNG files as needed in spans of the sequence, and offers a range of outputs, up to at least 6k. It also deals with flickers.

Oops--just saw Dale's mention of this software (post 27)--apologies for the redundancy!

 

[Dale D]

Another approach (which I use) is LRTimelapse, which works in conjunction with Lightroom. LRTL uses keyframes to adjust DNG files as needed in spans of the sequence, and offers a range of outputs, up to at least 6k. It also deals with flickers.

All of the above are true. I have been using the lowest paid pro version and usually output 4K video.Most of my clips are 350 exposures.

 

[itsneedtokno]

The most obvious free version limitations are 400 images for a segment, and 1080P max output.
TBH, the 400 images isn't too bad- most films benefit from shorter clips cut together rather than one long clip (at 25fps with the max 400 frames, that's still 16 seconds playback) - 4K never bothered me as I only had a 1080P TV, but I've now upgraded, and the drone records 4k as does my mirrorless... so I'm likely to "feel" this limitation soon. You could probably work around it by using LRTimelapse to do all the heavy editing/syncing, then export all the frames and put them together into a movie in something else like Resolve?

Full feature comparison is here: LRTimelapse | Features

So would editing in LrC then exporting to PP with my sequence settings set to 3840x2160 provide 4K or is it a fake 4K lol?

@brett8883 you could answer this also.

like these videos... are they 4K really? because YouTube shows 4K resolution available.

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

A dng sequence is a video made up of DNG (RAW photos) instead of jpegs like you’ve been doing.

Usually DNG would require special software like Lightroom to edit but DaVinci Resolve can edit the videos made from RAW photos just like Lightroom does it for photos.

You deserve a beer for your inputs on this topic! Cheers ?? ??

 

[Dale D]

So would editing in LrC then exporting to PP with my sequence settings set to 3840x2160 provide 4K or is it a fake 4K lol?

@brett8883 you could answer this also.

like these videos... are they 4K really? because YouTube shows 4K resolution available.

In LR Timelapse, once the sequence is processed in other amazing software, you are then prompted to RENDER. A new window opens up and you have the choices of resoluti from 780 all the way to 8K!!! I believe the level I have purchased allows 4K, which I believe is a true 4K. The choices go to 6 K and 8K for more PRO versions .The render engine also allows choices of 1:1, (real time), or multiples such as + 1/2 time, +1/4 time, and more as well as 2x,4x,6x time. I never use these because I can speed or slow clips in Premiere Pro. The more expensive versions allow more motion blur too.

So to answer your question, I process time lapses in LR Time lapse, then import that file of the completed and rendered video to Premiere Pro.

 

[itsneedtokno]

In LR Timelapse, once the sequence is processed in other amazing software, you are then prompted to RENDER. A new window opens up and you have the choices of resoluti from 780 all the way to 8K!!! I believe the level I have purchased allows 4K, which I believe is a true 4K. The choices go to 6 K and 8K for more PRO versions .The render engine also allows choices of 1:1, (real time), or multiples such as + 1/2 time, +1/4 time, and more as well as 2x,4x,6x time. I never use these because I can speed or slow clips in Premiere Pro. The more expensive versions allow more motion blur too.

So to answer your question, I process time lapses in LR Time lapse, then import that file of the completed and rendered video to Premiere Pro.

So I used LightRoom Classic for those two Hyperlapses.

I see now that the Storm footage is actually available is 5K?! So does that mean YouTube is adding resolution from nothing, or...?

I'm still confused.

 

[brett8883]

So would editing in LrC then exporting to PP with my sequence settings set to 3840x2160 provide 4K or is it a fake 4K lol?

@brett8883 you could answer this also.

like these videos... are they 4K really? because YouTube shows 4K resolution available.

So when I said it only exports in 1080p I was thinking you were using LR classic to render the actual video which it can do. The way you’ve done it is 4k. You still aren’t getting the benefit of RAW to do your keyframe edits and taking way more steps than needed though.

LR Timelapse is a dedicated program to do the same thing I’m talking about. If you find that easier to work with then there’s no problem doing that other than the limits of the various tiers and it’s not free. The other thing would be if there’s other stuff you want to do to it you have to render out before bringing into premier in which case you are again rendering twice.

 

[itsneedtokno]

So when I said it only exports in 1080p I was thinking you were using LR classic to render the actual video which it can do. The way you’ve done it is 4k. You still aren’t getting the benefit of RAW to do your keyframe edits and taking way more steps than needed though.

LR Timelapse is a dedicated program to do the same thing I’m talking about. If you find that easier to work with then there’s no problem doing that other than the limits of the various tiers and it’s not free. The other thing would be if there’s other stuff you want to do to it you have to render out before bringing into premier in which case you are again rendering twice.

I tried your AE style, and I like it, but...

I need more RAM to do it that way. I only have 16GB with 11GB (max) dedicated to Adobe.

I have 32GB of Intel "Optane" but it doesn't work the same.

So running After Effects and Premiere Pro at the same time causes both of them to run slower, whereas I can edit in Lightroom and export the files, then close Lightroom and open Premiere to finish exporting in 4k.

(I probably just need to figure it out a little better and might love it)

I'll be trying LRtimelapse later tonight, be back with updates.

The first clip is AE, there rest are LrC.

The last three clips have a strange pinkish center I've not seen before. Help?

 

[Dale D]

So when I said it only exports in 1080p I was thinking you were using LR classic to render the actual video which it can do. The way you’ve done it is 4k. You still aren’t getting the benefit of RAW to do your keyframe edits and taking way more steps than needed though.

LR Timelapse is a dedicated program to do the same thing I’m talking about. If you find that easier to work with then there’s no problem doing that other than the limits of the various tiers and it’s not free. The other thing would be if there’s other stuff you want to do to it you have to render out before bringing into premier in which case you are again rendering twice.

So I was finally able to bring up the LR Timelapse video rendering screen- The pay for version includes 4k, and low level motion blur. For a more expensive Pro fee you can get up to 8 K and more motion blur.

 

[brett8883]

I tried your AE style, and I like it, but...

I need more RAM to do it that way. I only have 16GB with 11GB (max) dedicated to Adobe.

I have 32GB of Intel "Optane" but it doesn't work the same.

So running After Effects and Premiere Pro at the same time causes both of them to run slower, whereas I can edit in Lightroom and export the files, then close Lightroom and open Premiere to finish exporting in 4k.

(I probably just need to figure it out a little better and might love it)

I'll be trying LRtimelapse later tonight, be back with updates.

The first clip is AE, there rest are LrC.

The last three clips have a strange pinkish center I've not seen before. Help?

Part of why I like Resolve better is because it is much more optimized for modern computing architecture. You’ll be shocked at how much better it performs than AE or PP. Adobe created AE and PP on older architecture and spent years adding features that ran on older architecture. Adobe is now behind the 8 ball because they have to go back and rewrite all that code while at the same time allowing the older code to still run. In all honesty I can’t even use AE or PP anymore because it drives me crazy. When I first made the switch I thought something wasn’t working because it took 30 seconds to render a video in Resolve that would have taken hours to render in AE.

Just try resolve. Give it a chance and you’ll never look back. I’ll admit that the nodes thing is hard at first for someone use to layers to comprehend but once it clicks you are golden.

Again your colors may come back to the fact that LR is editing each photo in a vacuum. AE realizes that these photos are part of a video and is superior at editing for video. That’s what AE does.

 

[itsneedtokno]

Part of why I like Resolve better is because it is much more optimized for modern computing architecture. You’ll be shocked at how much better it performs than AE or PP. Adobe created AE and PP on older architecture and spent years adding features that ran on older architecture. Adobe is now behind the 8 ball because they have to go back and rewrite all that code while at the same time allowing the older code to still run. In all honesty I can’t even use AE or PP anymore because it drives me crazy. When I first made the switch I thought something wasn’t working because it took 30 seconds to render a video in Resolve that would have taken hours to render in AE.

Just try resolve. Give it a chance and you’ll never look back. I’ll admit that the nodes thing is hard at first for someone use to layers to comprehend but once it clicks you are golden.

Again your colors may come back to the fact that LR is editing each photo in a vacuum. AE realizes that these photos are part of a video and is superior at editing for video. That’s what AE does.

I've downloaded LrT and am downloading Davinci now.

i bought this laptop knowing the GPU was not the strong point though... will an Nvidia MX150 and the intel 620 onboard be enough?

 

[G Randy Brown]

Part of why I like Resolve better is because it is much more optimized for modern computing architecture. You’ll be shocked at how much better it performs than AE or PP. Adobe created AE and PP on older architecture and spent years adding features that ran on older architecture. Adobe is now behind the 8 ball because they have to go back and rewrite all that code while at the same time allowing the older code to still run. In all honesty I can’t even use AE or PP anymore because it drives me crazy. When I first made the switch I thought something wasn’t working because it took 30 seconds to render a video in Resolve that would have taken hours to render in AE.

Just try resolve. Give it a chance and you’ll never look back. I’ll admit that the nodes thing is hard at first for someone use to layers to comprehend but once it clicks you are golden.

Again your colors may come back to the fact that LR is editing each photo in a vacuum. AE realizes that these photos are part of a video and is superior at editing for video. That’s what AE does.

I've been a Vegas Pro fanboi since Sony Vegas 3 (it was purchased by Magix and now on version 18).
I had been getting terrible playback with 4K (3-4 fps) so started looking around and tried several trials but nothing gives me better playback than Resolve (film industry standard that used to sell for $100,000 plus).
I'm an old dog but I'm bound and determined to push thru the learning curve and going to buy the card from Black Magic so I can use my bigass external monitor ?