Timeline for Video from still images - Zooming
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2014 at 16:43 | comment | added | Craig | arty - please DO report back on your Blue Gene zoom! | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | Craig | Well, math is just a tool; there are no inflexible rules about how to use it. You say “...the amount of zoom on each frame is based on the size of the previous frame ...” What’s wrong with basing the scale change on the ORIGINAL frame-size? If you start with an 800x600 frame and you zoom out in thirty 1-per-cent, linear, steps (i.e. first 99% of orig, then 98% of orig,...) you end up at 568 x 426. If you zoom out down geometrically (i.e. first 99% of orig., then 99% of frame 2, ...) you end up at 598 x 448. A 3% difference over a second (assuming 30 f.p.s.). Is that an important difference? | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 18:28 | comment | added | BrettFromLA | Since you're techy and math-y, you've probably already figured out that the amount of zoom on each frame is based on the size of the previous frame. That is, you don't want frame zoom to be based on the original frame size, like 100%, 90%, 80%, 70% because that would lead quickly to 0%! The "size" or "zoom" of each frame should be a percentage of the previous frame. 99% would give a slow, dreamy zoom. 90% would give a fast, racing zoom. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 21:37 | vote | accept | arty | ||
| Mar 16, 2014 at 21:37 | comment | added | arty | I am unable to do it in real-time, as I have to set a job and it could take up to 24 hours to find the free cycles to run. I have to set it and I will report back how it goes! Thanks! | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 3:24 | history | edited | Craig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 204 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2014 at 3:17 | history | answered | Craig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |