The opposite of slow-mo is? Fast-and-furious?

I am testing high-speed video for a project I need to do so I decided to record my drive-in to work today (I think I’ll record the drive home as well, at different settings, naturally).  Recorded and played back at 20X… I kind of like the result.  My commute, stuck into 45 seconds, looks like more fun that what it actually was… :-)  Well you be the judge of that.

And here is my drive back.

I am liking this setup and, clearly, need to modify low-light settings. I’ll work on this and report back, stay tuned :-)

Update Nov. 21st.

So, I am experimenting with compressing time. I need to record a process which takes about a day and compress it into a video. All this while experimenting with my own videos and trying to learn some things from it.

Today I decided to drive to work, recording a time-lapse image sequence at 12 MP, 0.5 seconds apart. Typical video is 30 frames per second which basically means I am compressing the “video” by 15X as opposed to the 20X I got in the previous videos (which felt a little too fast).

30 minutes of driving (I went to get smokes and I had to drop by the postoffice) transformed to 1,743 photos totaling around 7.5 GB. That’s be 15 GB per hour so I’d need to go smaller if I am to fit a day’s worth of stuff onto the biggest microSD card I have: 64 GB (looks like now I can barely get 4 hours on it this way). Clearly, I need to either reduce the size of the photos or switch to lower resolution video.

Most important, though, is if I like the result, right? As I am writing this, the LRTimelapse 3.4.1 is talking to Lightroom 5 trying to produce this insane sequence. It’s been almost 2 hours where I have to click something every 30 minutes or-so and then go do something else as my laptop keeps humming [literally, humming, since the processors are burning and the dang thing needs to cool itself]. From the looks of it I have another 30 minutes before LRTimelapse receives the rendered sequence from Lightroom… Let’s see what happens then and wait some more before I can click upload.

Thus-far, the time-lapse image sequence method is far more time consuming, software intensive (including software license costs) and questionable quality improvement. I’ll update more once the video is ready.

How did I know?! About 30 minutes of rendering later we arrive at an 800 MB video. Let’s see it already, right?

I love it! The quality is far superior to the video format… BUT AT WHAT EXPENSE?!

  • Huge time wasted on converting the video.  To be more accurate, I did not spend much of my time, just the computer did, … and I was busy doing other things.
  • Lots of space on the HD.

I need to think about this format very hard…  Perhaps I’ll take one more and test it out.  Here’s the damage to the HD:

Screen Shot 2014-11-21 at 11.58.27 AM

%d bloggers like this: