Skip navigation
Jordan Olthuis
Jordan Olthuis
Currently Being Moderated

rendering 5184x3456 res pics for time lapses makes it worse quality than before!

Apr 9, 2012 2:20 PM

I am getting some time lapses now using my timer remote for my Canon 7D so I can get big resolution pics for my time lapses (5184x3456).

I make HD videos and these time lapses will be great to have in them, before I would just record video and speed it up, now I can get them with big pictures.

 

I would make a new sequence just for these pictures, I would use the 'digital SLR' sequence and make the resolution to be 5184x3456 and everything, and then I would put the pictures into that sequence and then I would bring that sequence into my other sequence where it would be used in the video, so that I can have control to make the time lapse faster if I want and I can easily and quickly change the scale and position of the whole time lapse to make it fit good into my 16:9 HD video project.

 

the problem is when I press enter to render the pictures while they are in there 5184x3456 sequence, they get worse quality!

I dont understand why! before I reneder it, I look at it at 100% to really see all the resolution, and I render it and it gets totally worse, I dont understand!

 

What am I supposed to do? are some certain settings wrong? I even had the 'max bit depth' and 'max render quality' checked when creating the sequence if that means anything.

 

so if you guys could let me know how should I be using these pictures for time lapses in my videos then that would be great!

any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

760 Views   10 Replies   Latest reply: Jordan Olthuis, Apr 10, 2012 1:21 PM
 
Replies
  • Bill Hunt
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Bill Hunt,
    Apr 9, 2012 7:07 PM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Report

    What are you going to use, to Export and deliver your 5184 x 3456 Frane Size Video? How do you plan on delivering this material?

     

    Good luck,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jordan Olthuis
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. Jordan Olthuis,
    Apr 9, 2012 7:53 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt
    Report

    this is for a 1920x1080 res video of mine, this is for the web like youtube and stuff, but I just need to know how to do things the right way to keep it the best quality.

     

    I am editing the movie in premiere pro CS5, I put the pics in a premiere pro sequence cuz I assumed that would make the most sense.

    maybe I should use after effects perhaps? I heard some people using that for their time lapses.

     

    I just like to be able to have control over the whole time lapse sequence for scale and positioning and speed in the premiere timeline

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jim Curtis
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Jim Curtis,
    Apr 10, 2012 9:32 AM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Report

    Can you list your export settings, or provide a screen shot?  There are many variables that could cause it to look "worse."  Such as, if you chose a lossy codec at a low bit rate.  And so on.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SAFEHARBOR11
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. SAFEHARBOR11,
    Apr 10, 2012 9:53 AM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Report

    Hi Jordan,

     

    Issue #1 is trying to edit in a video sequence using 5184x3456 resolution. Use the default 1920x1080, and resize your images in Photoshop to that size first. You can easily set up a batch convert, or use an app like IrFanView to do it for you.

     

    Jeff Pulera

    Safe Harbor Computers

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jim Curtis
    Currently Being Moderated
    5. Jim Curtis,
    Apr 10, 2012 10:37 AM   in reply to SAFEHARBOR11
    Report

    Jeff, this sounds good in theory.  But, it sounds to me like Jordan wants to be able to pan and scan on his images.  So, scaling his images to 1080 wouldn't give him the flexibility to do that.  Depending on how much he wants to move around, something like 2592 x 1798 (half res) would give him a little room to move, plus give his CPU a break.

     

    Perhaps it would be best to import his stills as an image sequence into Pr or Ae, work in a 1920x1080 Sequence or Comp.  Or, if they're not sequentially numbered, to drop his 1-frame images into a PreComp in Ae, and sequence manually.

     

    For time-scaling, Ae is probably the better option, as Jordan can either time-scale an image sequence, or a precomp of sequential images.  Pr isn't the best choice for time-based effects, IMO.  Ae has built-in frame blending options.  And for added flexibility, he could look into a third-party plug like Twixtor for even more control.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John T Smith
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. John T Smith,
    Apr 10, 2012 10:57 AM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Report

    Photo Scaling for Video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/450798

    -Too Large May = Crash http://forums.adobe.com/thread/879967

    -And another crash report http://forums.adobe.com/thread/973935

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jordan Olthuis
    Currently Being Moderated
    7. Jordan Olthuis,
    Apr 10, 2012 1:11 PM   in reply to SAFEHARBOR11
    Report

    ya I just figured out how to batch convert photos now, cuz I didnt know how to do that,

    and Jim I'm not talking about after I exported the video, I'm talking about while its still in premiere after I 'rendered' it (pressing enter)

     

    but I tried exporting the video into 1920x1080 and it looks perfect like its supposed to, better than the video preview window shows, so I dont really understand why the preview window goes wierd on me

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jordan Olthuis
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. Jordan Olthuis,
    Apr 10, 2012 1:17 PM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Report

    but ya at the same time I don't always want to resize them because I may like to pan and scan sometimes or something, but I think I got this figured out, because when I export the video, it looks great like its supposed to look anyway, so its just the preview window thats showing me something a bit wrong

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jim Curtis
    Currently Being Moderated
    9. Jim Curtis,
    Apr 10, 2012 1:19 PM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Report

    Maybe your Playback Resolution is set to less than Full.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jordan Olthuis
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. Jordan Olthuis,
    Apr 10, 2012 1:21 PM   in reply to Jim Curtis
    Report

    no both paused and playback resolution were set to full

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points