Hi Gunther,
First of all I would like to say, I am very impressed with so far. I am new o TLs and downloaded version 1.9.4 to give it a try after using iMovie and iPhoto (having to export the jpegs from LR and import to iPhoto) and the fact that I can batch process my photos via LR using LRT is a god send.
I have followed the instructions on your tutorial and have redone the same TL (for comparison sake) and all goes very smoothly until I have to use the video presets I downloaded for LR.. I have a sequence of 1700 photos (jpegs) and I left my Mac running over night (nearly 7 hours) and by morning it was still not half way through the rendering process
My export selection was 720p@24fps and I am using a MacBook pro with 8 GB of Ram and a solid state drive. My working drives is an external USB 2 (to read from) and a FW800 (to write to) and I am running Mountain Lion.
Any idea what could be the problem?
I am reverting to exporting my edited files from LR as 1280x720 jpegs to use another program (most likely QT7) to compile the video then going to further edit it in FCPx.
Many thanks..
Mo
The Video-Exporting of Lightroom is certainly not the fastest - but this seems long for me as well. Have you tried the 1080p preset in comparison?
1.700 images is a lot, it would give you 1 minute and 10 secs of timelapse - normally we deal with 15-20 secs sequences and assemble them with a video editing program.
Maybe it could make sense to shorten that sequence. You could even use LRTimelapse to remove every second or every third image to get a faster play (the function is in the HDR-Menu -> select every nth -> then delete)
Unfortunately the rendering speed of lightroom is not in my hands...
(2012-08-07, 18:34)gwegner Wrote: [ -> ]The Video-Exporting of Lightroom is certainly not the fastest - but this seems long for me as well. Have you tried the 1080p preset in comparison?
1.700 images is a lot, it would give you 1 minute and 10 secs of timelapse - normally we deal with 15-20 secs sequences and assemble them with a video editing program.
Maybe it could make sense to shorten that sequence. You could even use LRTimelapse to remove every second or every third image to get a faster play (the function is in the HDR-Menu -> select every nth -> then delete)
Unfortunately the rendering speed of lightroom is not in my hands...
Hi Gunther,
Thank you for the reply.. I will try your suggestion regarding cutting down the footage and reassembling it later as well as trying a different preset and report back..
Many thanks,
Mo
(2012-08-08, 01:03)Mojo_times Wrote: [ -> ] (2012-08-07, 18:34)gwegner Wrote: [ -> ]The Video-Exporting of Lightroom is certainly not the fastest - but this seems long for me as well. Have you tried the 1080p preset in comparison?
1.700 images is a lot, it would give you 1 minute and 10 secs of timelapse - normally we deal with 15-20 secs sequences and assemble them with a video editing program.
Maybe it could make sense to shorten that sequence. You could even use LRTimelapse to remove every second or every third image to get a faster play (the function is in the HDR-Menu -> select every nth -> then delete)
Unfortunately the rendering speed of lightroom is not in my hands...
Hi Gunther,
Thank you for the reply.. I will try your suggestion regarding cutting down the footage and reassembling it later as well as trying a different preset and report back..
Many thanks,
Mo
Hi Mo,
I'm always using Quicktime Pro 7 on my mac which is way faster. I would really love to use just the LRtimelapse presets so I can stay within LR but LR is too slow.
In Quicktime just go to file: open image sequence and just choose one image of that sequence (you have to export them first from Lightroom, jpeg's are sufficient). After that that you can export using quicktime. Exporting as Apple Prores 422 is so fast it just took 15 seconds for a sequence of 400 pictures!
Best regards,
David
Yes, but exporting the JPGs from Lightroom takes time as well so in fact I think the workflow isn't really faster. I use to let Lightroom render some sequences in parallel when I'm not at the computer.
Of course the exporting takes time but from my experience it is still way faster including the LR export plus it's easier and faster afterwards if you decide to use different framerates or resolutions and you have full resolution "screenshots" from your timelapse :-) Maybe I've some time to make a comparison this weekend.
I experienced something similar with 3000 shots,
I had to change the workflow, to open the images in adobe bridge after I completed all the editing in Lightroom and LRT
then from bridge send to photoshop and from there save as jpeg, takes a couple of hours to convert from raw to jpeg, then I did a droplet to downsize to 1080p size,
then at the end just open the sequence as video in after effects or quicktime and export as movie, all this was way faster than using lightroom to export out.
but lots of extra work
hope that helps
Rafael
Ramirez, why didn't you just export as JPG in 1920x1080 directly from Lightroom?
As promised I did some speed tests and with some strange results. On my macpro exporting as jpg and exporting with quicktime was as fast as rendering the movie from Lightroom with the LR timelapse presets. On my 17" macbook pro exporting as jpg with QT export was way faster. Same LR Versions etc. on both machines. I used my external Raid from LaCie on both machines and both exported to an SSD Drive so there was also not a difference between read an write speeds.
I'll do some further testing to see why this is different.
That's indeed interesting. Please keep us posted. Maybe someone would like to test this on Windows as well.