Photo-to-video software
- Thread starter thamws
- Start date
- Status
muvee autoProducer
www.muvee.com
www.muvee.com
Thanks for all the recommendations so far, but maybe I've not specified what I needed clear enough. You've all recommended me programs to make slideshow. The software I am looking for is to join a continuous sequence of photographs into a, something like, fast forward movie, when everything is accelerated in motion. For example, like watching a plant grow in real life will be very slow, but if I can take a time-interval sequence of photos, then join them up into a movie, then we can watch the plant grow, maybe in 1 min. Not sure what I should call this kind of software. Any advice? Sorry for not being specific enough.
not that much different, it's still a "slideshow".
if you have lots of images (still pictures), each of them will be a single frame in the video, if you set the duration of each images to a shorter period, maybe a second, or less... then put it in a movie project, then when you play the movie in a normal speed all those still images will turns into a moving pictures. right..?
a good quality movie is about 30fps (frame per second).
if you have lots of images (still pictures), each of them will be a single frame in the video, if you set the duration of each images to a shorter period, maybe a second, or less... then put it in a movie project, then when you play the movie in a normal speed all those still images will turns into a moving pictures. right..?
a good quality movie is about 30fps (frame per second).
Hi Dieter, I understand that, but the problem is, if I have, say, about 1000 photos to be sequenced into a movie, all these photos dragged into the timeline usually have a duration of a few seconds each. I will need to manually edit each of them to last only 1 frame duration. Too tedious to edit 1000 photos. Or do you have a solution to that?
well.., that'll depends to the software used.
I've only used Windows Movie Maker and Adobe Premiere Pro.
in windows movie maker, you can set the default duration for pictures to 0.125 second, the lowest.
in Premiere Pro.., never checked it out..
.. , but probably it's more customizable since it's a more advanced software than Movie Maker.
in Movie Maker, once the default is set, all pictures imported into a timeline will have the same default duration.
I don't know if 0.125 second is good enough for you..
I've only used Windows Movie Maker and Adobe Premiere Pro.
in windows movie maker, you can set the default duration for pictures to 0.125 second, the lowest.
in Premiere Pro.., never checked it out..
.. , but probably it's more customizable since it's a more advanced software than Movie Maker.in Movie Maker, once the default is set, all pictures imported into a timeline will have the same default duration.
I don't know if 0.125 second is good enough for you..
Unless you take the pictures at 25 fps, no matter how short the length per frame, it'll still look like a "slideshow".
You might be interested to search for one of a-ha's latest music video on youtube. The footage is made up of photos one for every day for i think a year, as the camera moves around a lake.
You might be interested to search for one of a-ha's latest music video on youtube. The footage is made up of photos one for every day for i think a year, as the camera moves around a lake.
Hi Shojibake, not sure what you mean by "take the pictures at 25 fps". I originally meant using my camera to take time-interval pictures (no particular fixed interval) and combine these frames into movie. Taking pictures at 25 fps (if possible with a DC) is equivalent to using a video cam. Should just use a video cam straight away.
I've calculated that if I want to create 1 min of such time-interval movie, I'll need 1500 pictures. If I take 1 picture every 15 sec, I'll need to continuously take the pictures for about 6 hrs. That's the challenge.
Normally for slideshow there's "picture effect" & "transition effect" settings. If picture effect is set to none and transition effect have a duration of zero, there shouldn't be any "start-stop-start-stop" effect at all, even if each frame is 1 sec duration or more. Maybe the program you use have some defaults like "fade" transition effect that's why got the start-stop thing.
Given that the subject has very small movements, any movements between 2 consecutive frames shouldn't be noticeable.
rgds
Given that the subject has very small movements, any movements between 2 consecutive frames shouldn't be noticeable.
rgds
that's the key point.
creating movie from pictures..., then a 'slideshow effect' is perhaps desirable and that's intended to happen as a result.
if you want smooth transition you really should just use a handycam.
I'm sure you've seen some national geographic movie of a landscape shot in a very slow speed of video camera during the whole day and night, and then played back in a normal speed showing the movement of clouds and changes of sun/moon shines throughout the whole landscape. for me it looks like a slideshow too...
but of course a very well done slideshow...Yes, videocam is the idea tool for the job, but you need a very long tape or very big HDD to store the long video. With that, you can just increase the playback speed to shorten the movie. I don't have this ideal tool, but I have a camera that takes time-interval pictures. I'm just thinking if I can make use of this feature to do something, like creating a short movie. Haven't really tried on a flower though. Tried on a road from day till night. That's why I got the start-stop effect. Motion not very fluent.
The reason why it's jerky on cars is that the cars move too fast during the capture process. The distance they travel is too far. It depends on your capture rate. So no matter how short you make each frame it will never be as smooth as simply just recording it and speeding it up later in post. Or if you have a camera that can record like 100 frames a second, i'd be keen to try it out from you.
- Status
Similar threads
