Skip navigation
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!


  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 9, 2012 7:07 PM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis

    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,



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 9:32 AM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis

    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:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 9:53 AM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis

    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:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 10:37 AM   in reply to SAFEHARBOR11

    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:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 10:57 AM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 1:19 PM   in reply to Jordan Olthuis

    Maybe your Playback Resolution is set to less than Full.

    Mark as:

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