The thing is, that the viewer wouldn't be able to comprehend such fast changing timestamps. Would that really be of any benefit for the end result?

Hi Gunther,

I'm just putting my personal editstyle here, don't really know how hard some things are in coding, so don't take it as 'it must be', but just explaining how I look at things.

Personally I like the visual experience of a counter going to fast for your eyes. It gives an extra layer to the experience of a long term timelapse.

But next to that there are some real issues with 1 time per second.

Long term timelapse is often not evenly distributed along time. You have gaps and selections when things happen.

In the case where I sometimes take 1 image per day for a long term timelapse of two years (which is already thirty seconds of timelapse) and you would show only year, month, and day in the timer, you really are off 24 times of the 25 frames. I think that is to much when you try to visualize the time. Worst case you are 24 days off the real time, thats a difference of almost a month.

Sometimes you cut out a week or three (vacation etc). If the image selected for the counter per second, is right before that, you can have even bigger gaps between real time, and the time of the counter.

So its not really the comprehension for the viewers, its more the accurate timing.

Regards,

Bas

Ok, I understand. I just sent you another beta, please let me know what you think.

The option to additionally or alternatively export SRT subtitle files with the timestamp data hast been implemented in 6.2.1.
Also, in the Settings there will be an option to activate the inclusion of seconds in the timestamp display.