-
My last time lapse post (for now)
As mentioned in a previous thread or two, I’m currently testing field production techniques for shooting time lapse “video.” We are using a Canon D60 on a timer to shoot a long series of stills which will be brought into After Effects as a sequence. I’m interested in opinions/words of experience regarding this question:
Is it best to shoot the still images “raw” or in the highest resolution the camera otherwise normally delivers? And why?
David Bogie(san) advised on an early thread not to shoot raw. He indicated that using raw images adds unnecessary complexity to the post production process, if I understood him correctly. If you’re reading here, bogiesan, can you provide a bit more explanation about that? Why are the camera native (non raw) images better to work with? And, of course, I’d also appreciate any words of wisdom from others who have experience in this. \
As I say, we have embarked on testing and we’ll continue that, but experienced advice here probably could save us some time.
Cheers,
Ron -
5 Replies
-
It probably depends on how comfortable you are working with Raw or the other format (jpeg?). I personally would shoot in raw so you can easily make batch raw adjustments and have the option of working with 32-bit colors in After Effects which can produce some amazing effects not possible with 8 or 16 bit images. However, if you aren’t familiar with RAW adjustments or 32-bit color processing, and all you would be doing is batch converting to jpeg… then yes it would be easier to just take them as jpeg to avoid having to convert them all.
Jon Geddes
Motion Graphics Designer
http://www.precomposed.com -
Well, Jon, you have unfortunately told me what I expected to hear: That using still images for time lapse video pulls me inexorably into the huge and strange world of still image processing. It only makes sense, right? So now I will begin the work and study with an initial goal of finding out how much of this work I will need to farm out to an expert! Or whether I can learn enough to get by for my limited needs. If you have any tutorial suggestions, great. I’ll start looking for some things now.
Thanks.
– Ron
-
[Ron Craig] “Well, Jon, you have unfortunately told me what I expected to hear: That using still images for time lapse video pulls me inexorably into the huge and strange world of still image processing. It only makes sense, right? So now I will begin the work and study with an initial goal of finding out how much of this work I will need to farm out to an expert! Or whether I can learn enough to get by for my limited needs. If you have any tutorial suggestions, great. I’ll start looking for some things now.”
Naw, I told you that in response to one of your earlier posts: proprietary raw formats require processing in the camera’s supplied raw editor, Photoshop, Aperture, or Lightroom. I also suggested you could search for many of my earlier posts on timelapse and your would find some that include a long list of Web resources. I found all of them by simply googling timelapse and then spending a few hours sorting and reading the good ones.
Shooting time compression with a still camera is not at all difficult but like any technically demanding assignment, it does require some complex planning and anticipation.
bogiesan
-
I really did check out the links you put in an earlier thread. (I’m not sure it was one of “my” threads but, in any event, I saw them and I didn’t disregard them!)
But this new thread was really about the narrow issue of raw versus whatever the camera “normally” delivers (e.g. high res jpeg). After recently importing some raw images that didn’t look as good in AE without a lot of adjustments, I was wondering whether the in-camera processing might save me some of that trouble without costing me too much in resolution. Your advice NOT to use raw in an earlier thread was what led to this question. Why, I wondered, does bogiesan not prefer raw?
-
I’ll let him respond as well, but here is my input:
It’s not about which one is better. RAW is clearly a better format to work with. Just like 4k HD is better than HDV video. However, the question is, what is best for you. You can still get pretty good results using just jpeg from the camera, but if you are a perfectionist and really know what you are doing, you would be using RAW. If the project doesn’t demand the highest quality standards, then there is no need for RAW. Learning how to make good raw adjustments, like a professional photographer would, takes some time. Here are some questions you have to ask yourself:
-How much difference will the final product look when comparing RAW to jpeg? The answer to that will depend on how good you are at making raw adjustments.
-How much time are you willing to spend learning how to make proper raw adjustments?
-Is the amount of time it takes worth it for this project?You might get the gist of it by reading some tutorials, but it could take weeks of practice on hundreds of images to truly get professional results. There are some guidelines but its more of an art.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Jon Geddes
Motion Graphics Designer
http://www.precomposed.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up