Daniel Hruska While shooting slow-motion videos (so-called slow motion) was a novelty in iOS 7 last year, this year the eighth version of the mobile operating system went in a completely opposite direction – instead of slowing down the video, it speeds it up. If you haven't heard of time-lapse before this fall, maybe you'll fall in love with it thanks to iOS 8.
The principle of timing is very simple. At a fixed time interval, the camera takes a picture, and when finished, all the pictures are combined into a single video. This gives the effect of recording a video and then playing it in fast motion.
Note that I used the term "fixed interval". But if you look at American site describing the camera's functions, you will find a mention of dynamic range on them. Does this mean that the interval will change and the resulting video will be sped up more in certain passages and less in others?
No way, the explanation is completely different, Applause simple. The frame interval changes, but not randomly, but due to the length of the capture. iOS 8 doubles the frame interval after doubling the capture time, starting at 10 minutes. It sounds complicated, but the table below is already simple and understandable.
| Scanning time | Frame Interval | Acceleration |
|---|---|---|
| up to 10 minutes | 2 frames per second | 15 × |
| 10-20 minutes | 1 frame per second | 30 × |
| 10-40 minutes | 1 frame in 2 seconds | 60 × |
| 40-80 minutes | 1 frame in 4 seconds | 120 × |
| 80-160 minutes | 1 frame in 8 seconds | 240 × |
This is a very good implementation for casual users who have no idea what frame rate to choose because they've never tried time-lapse before or even don't know it at all. After ten minutes, iOS automatically doubles the frame per second interval, discarding previous frames outside the new frequency.
Here are samples of timelapses, where the first was shot for 5 minutes, the second for 40 minutes:
[vimeo id=”106877883″ width=”620″ height=”360″]
[vimeo id=”106877886″ width=”620″ height=”360″]
As a bonus, this solution saves space on the iPhone, which at the initial rate of 2 frames per second would quickly decrease. At the same time, this ensures a constant length of the resulting video, which normally varies between 20 and 40 seconds at 30 fps, which is just right for time lapse.
All of the above is perfect for users who just want to shoot and not set anything up. Those who are more advanced can of course use third-party applications where they can define the frame interval. What about you, have you tried time-lapse in iOS 8 yet?
It's very nice, for example for a house party. Place your mobile phone somewhere and record the watch.
So I liked the application more - Timelapse and Lightspeed :-) which offer me more setting options. And above all, lightspeed with the possibility of blurring objects looks amazing :) Timelapse is just a better application in terms of settings, the result is about the same as from Apple :-)
I use the paid Miniatures program on my iPhone 5. It's great, you can also set anything there. See here my first video shot on this program :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rOJ4EKvyos&list=UU3-ZKonKIj3STofRkuJB7IQ
Nice ;-)
It's fine for normal people who want to play. I welcome it if I don't have a camera with me. Otherwise, it is even better to use an ND filter, set the time as I want and take pictures of the stars (quite difficult here due to light noise). But it's great for mobile and it's nice how Apple can bring it to the general population, which is not interested in it.
What is the size of such an hour-long timelapse video?
Try Instagram's Hyperlapse. It's a free app, and thanks to stabilization, the recorded timelapse is about 300% better and more watchable and, above all, smoother than Apple's solution.
No it is not true.
Thanks to stabilization, Hyperlapse is better for time-lapse when a person is moving. However, such a video will be of lower quality, but less frayed. Something for something.
Time-lapse in the Camera is intended for a tripod, when a static scene is taken with the iPhone. This is a classic time lapse. By not having to stabilize anything, the resulting video is in full quality and perfectly sharp.
So time lapse is not like time lapse. These cries that something is 300% better are absolutely wrong. It's all about the situation and the needs for the situation. This is more suitable for a given situation and something else for another.
I have a video in time lapse, I want to put it in normal speed. Is it okay?