jim wrote:
> "toll" <me@toll.ca> wrote
>
>> isnt this the same thing as a slideshow?
>
> Not for what I want to do. I want the images to flash by as fast as the
> frames in a normal movie (approx 30 fps) all the way up to 120 fps (if
> possible).
>
> It is an exercise in how the eye detects changes at high rates of speed.

Try the rec.video.desktop group.
Video is complicated, don't expect a simple answer.

Good old VirtualDub will do it. Just make sure all the images are named
consecutively( ie. image001.jpg, image002.jpg...ect...). I would also make
sure the images are at the same aspect ratio.
Then, in the file menu, where it says open avi, click on the first image of
the sequence. VD will load them all in, I think, as single frames. You can
then set the output to whatever kind of avi file you want, with whatever
compression and filtration you want.

Kurt

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:ocY6k.11459$mh5.10866@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> jim wrote:
>> "toll" <me@toll.ca> wrote
>>> isnt this the same thing as a slideshow?
>>
>> Not for what I want to do. I want the images to flash by as fast as the
>> frames in a normal movie (approx 30 fps) all the way up to 120 fps (if
>> possible).
>>
>> It is an exercise in how the eye detects changes at high rates of speed.
>
> Try the rec.video.desktop group.
> Video is complicated, don't expect a simple answer.

[crossposted to rec.video.desktop]
Kurt Herman wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote
>> jim wrote:
>>> "toll" <me@toll.ca> wrote
>>>> isnt this the same thing as a slideshow?
>>>
>>> Not for what I want to do. I want the images to flash by as fast as
>>> the frames in a normal movie (approx 30 fps) all the way up to 120
>>> fps (if possible).
>>>
>>> It is an exercise in how the eye detects changes at high rates of speed.
>>
>> Try the rec.video.desktop group.
>> Video is complicated, don't expect a simple answer.
>
> Good old VirtualDub will do it. Just make sure all the images are named
> consecutively( ie. image001.jpg, image002.jpg...ect...). I would also
> make sure the images are at the same aspect ratio.
> Then, in the file menu, where it says open avi, click on the first image
> of the sequence. VD will load them all in, I think, as single frames.
> You can then set the output to whatever kind of avi file you want, with
> whatever compression and filtration you want.

Yes, that's what I use but I'm not clear about the output fps... lots of
strange format quirks in video. I doubt 120 fps is even possible but I
don't know.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Jun 21, 1:51*pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> [crossposted to rec.video.desktop]
>
>
>
>
>
> Kurt Herman wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote
> >> jim wrote:
> >>> "toll" <m...@toll.ca> wrote
> >>>> isnt this the same thing as a slideshow?
>
> >>> Not for what I want to do. *I want the images to flash by as fast as
> >>> the frames in a normal movie (approx 30 fps) all the way up to 120
> >>> fps (if possible).
>
> >>> It is an exercise in how the eye detects changes at high rates of speed.
>
> >> Try the rec.video.desktop group.
> >> Video is complicated, don't expect a simple answer.
>
> > Good old VirtualDub will do it. Just make sure all the images are named
> > consecutively( ie. image001.jpg, image002.jpg...ect...). I would also
> > make sure the images are at the same aspect ratio.
> > Then, in the file menu, where it says open avi, click on the first image
> > of the sequence. VD will load them all in, I think, as single frames.
> > You can then set the output to whatever kind of avi file you want, with
> > whatever compression and filtration you want.
>
> Yes, that's what I use but I'm not clear about the output fps... lots of
> strange format quirks in video. I doubt 120 fps is even possible but I
> don't know.
>
> --
> Paul Furmanwww.edgehill.netwww.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just for kicks I tired at .006 and got 120 frames per second which
means 120 seperate images are flying past every second which of course
the human eye can't keep up with.

Google Persistence of vision for an interesting discussion of why we
as humans see "motion" in movies when it fact all we all looking at is
indvidual frames of still images.

One of many articles http://www.foundationsmag.com/persis...of_vision.html

Personally I would love to dump Windows but sadly Linux as yet has no
professional grade video editing software. Apple does offer Final Cut
Pro while Windows offers several pro grade choices besides Vegas.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:23:44 -0700 (PDT), FrankNeedsAPsychologist@gmail.com
wrote:

>Just for kicks I tired at .006 and got 120 frames per second which
>means 120 seperate images are flying past every second which of course
>the human eye can't keep up with.

And then you have to have your monitor set to display those 120 images per
second as well. Not that this will help ;-)

cheers

-martin-
--
Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:23:44 -0700, FrankNeedsAPsychologist wrote:

> sadly Linux as yet has no
> professional grade video editing software.

The BBC uses a complete Linux stack to produce a number of its shows,
mostly for reasons of speed. There have been articles published on how
they do it. Your favourite search engine should be able to find some of
them for you.

On Jun 21, 4:58*pm, Martin Heffels <goo...@flikken.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:23:44 -0700 (PDT), FrankNeedsAPsycholog...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Just for kicks I tired at .006 and got 120 frames per second which
> >means 120 seperate images are flying past every second which of course
> >the human eye can't keep up with.
>
> And then you have to have your monitor set to display those 120 images per
> second as well. Not that this will help ;-)
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid"http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

Maybe we're getting hung up on word semantics. What I suggested
increases the preceived play back speed. It has no effect on the
actual frames per second the resulting video plays at. We're talking
apples and oranges. In other words I'm simply reducing the time slice
of indvidual images during the creation process of making the video.
The shorter the images are in span of time the more will display per
second, so in effect it is a defaco change in frames per second not a
actual change. So the video will play at normal speed (30 frames a
second) but appear much faster than normal with no change in any
setting necessary during the playback phase. So if a "normal" video
has 30 frames a second, making twice as many images appear per second
in the first example (60 frames per second) simply requires reducing
the time by half each image appears on the timeline, in this case
thereby doubling the precevied playback speed or how fast things fly
past. Reducing to 25% of normal you end up with 4 times as many images
or 120 images flying by within a single second. Which is why I asked
WHY anyone would want to do that other than just see if it was
possible because watching it surely will give you a headache since
your brain can't process 120 seperate images per second. Maybe Mr.
Data of Star Trek could. ;-)

The only practical effect I can think of would be if you already a
video where motion was a key element such as a horse race once could
take such a video first reduce it to indvidual images, then apply the
method I explained and you would have the horses running much faster
once you rerendered the video where after each indvidual frame would
be half or one quarter it's prior speed making it appear the hourses
ran twice or four times faster than they really did. Since you began
with a video, not some random series of photos, the end result should
be much smoother.

Vegas like other high end video editors can also automate the process,
but what's happening there is selectively dropping frames which would
achive a similar effect of speeding up the video.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT), FrankNeedsAPsychologist@gmail.com
wrote:

>Maybe we're getting hung up on word semantics. What I suggested
>increases the preceived play back speed.

And what I am saying is that you can't play back 120 different pictures in
video. You're limited to a maximum, depending on the framerate you can
display, which is usually 25 or 30 frames (pictures) per second for regular
video. Of course you can playback higher frame rates, but that is a
specialised application.
So in the above case, say you are in NTSC-land, you would have to play 4
pictures in the timespace of 1 frame, which you simply can't do, meaning
you loose 3 of the pictures, which in this case have nothing to do with
your vision not being able to catch-up, but a limit of your playback
"machine".
Now if you play on a computer or film, you can go for higher framerates of
course, and then your story holds true.

cheers

-martin-
--
Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk