Comments on: Why does Quicktime suck so much?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:58:04 +0000

If you can successfully render 500 photos, why not simply render this amount 20 times and then combine the resulting video files into one? It may not be ideal, but rendering that many at one time is asking for trouble anyway in that a computer crash would destroy all progress.

I tend to take the slightly longer approach when doing things such as this as it removes the stress factor.

By: stephen

stephen — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:33:09 +0000

While QuickTime works fine for me on a MacBook Pro, I sympathise with your export progress niggles.

Exporting 480x270 QT movies from Final Cut Express, while not reaching the dizzying heights of 144% progress, does sit at between 7-12% for around three quarters of the 15-20 minutes it takes to churn out the average 2-3 minute movie. If you haven't been there before, it can look like you're in for a long, long wait.

So if (when!) you go Mac, be prepared...

By: echeng

echeng — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:17:52 +0000

I always thought Quicktime Pro was that one trick pony, since it has an “open image sequence” option. I’m sure Final Cut Pro does this very elegantly, and will probably go Mac if I start getting more serious about video.

By: Adam Nash

Adam Nash — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:29:54 +0000

I got it now. If you want one picture per frame, then you'd need one of the movie applications, iMovie HD, Final Cut Express, or Final Cut Pro.

I don't know the rendering times for those applications.

I'm pretty sure your $700 Dell matches the recent Intel Macs in speed/architecture, so not sure you have a reason to be so fussy with Macs. You did work for Apple, after all... :)

This makes me think there must be a "one trick pony" application that does just this - it seems like a relatively simple task. I'm suprised there isn't a shareware or other inexpensive program that just does this (pictures * fps -> movie)

Adam

By: echeng

echeng — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:24:39 +0000

Nash: iPhoto makes a slideshow, but will it automatically take a sequence of images and render it into a movie, with 1 sequential image per frame? (just curious) I ultimately need it at 1920x1080 resolution.

On my $700 Dell, 10,000 frames of 640x480 images takes hours, not days. QT Pro finishes the renders; it just refuses to quit. I can salvage the movie by copying the temp file before I cancel the job.

I did a test at full HD resolution (500+ images, which took less than an hour), and it looks damn cool. And QT Pro even quits properly when only using 500 images. :)

By: gilesshaxted

gilesshaxted — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:06:09 +0000

is this time frame of the building work at long last ?

By: Adam Nash

Adam Nash — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:59:24 +0000

iPhoto 6 seems to have a mode that offers a variety of sizes, up to full resolution... I know, because I accidentally made the movie first in that mode, and it was 680MB.

You were only trying to do 640x480 right? It definitely supports that. I lowered the size and added transitions just to produce a 60MB web version.

I think you are trying to use the wrong product here. If you want to bring over a drive, I'm willing to lend you my G5 to try doing it. I have to admit, doing 10K photos sounds like it would take days... the 78 photo movie, full size, took about 1/2 hour to render on my machine (although dual G5 is getting long in the tooth).

I like your blog, it's fun to tease you in public.

By: echeng

echeng — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:04:44 +0000

Adam - that isn't the type of thing I want to do. I can make movies like that in about 5 minutes. :)

This is a time-lapse with 10,000 sequential movies. Quicktime can open a sequence of images. It has to be high resolution as well, so iMovie isn't going to cut it!

By: Adam Nash

Adam Nash — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:10:58 +0000

Whoops… got the URL wrong: http://web.mac.com/adamnash/iW.....laska.html

By: Adam Nash

Adam Nash — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:09:30 +0000

Eric, don’t whine like a baby. :) I think you are running into the fact that Quicktime is the lowest of the low end as far as authoring is concerned - rendering 10K images into a movie is not a small feat.

Actually, iMovie and iDVD do this pretty well. Why don’t you just admit that you miss having a Mac, and get one for this type of thing. Final Cut Pro would also do this easily for you.

Have you seen my movie of my Alaska pictures (iPhoto generated, via export): http://web.apple.com/adamnash/Alaska