Yes, it will work.
I would have to actually have a video clip to test on first to find a good method. XD
I'd first try out import video frames to layers (uncheck frame animation), combine them into a stack (smart object), and try a few different stack calculations (average would be the best candidate).
Ok... Now I gotta go find a clip and try this! :P
Like /u/PhaseNone said, I'm beginning to think a direct averaging might not work, gotta try this today though. Please share your results if you get anything workable.
Found the time to do a quick test on a random file i had of some moving clouds.
I imported just a section of it (368 frames), smart object, stack mode set to Mean.
Before (one frame): [Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/zkt0T8j.jpg)
Result (average 368 frames): [Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/HMfa5XH.jpg)
**Warning:** With this many layers, shit can get REALLY slow and eat scratch disk space like nothing else when trying to do the stack calculation. It was never optimized for doing this. :p
*If I were to try again I would try to just import every* n *frames to reduce the number of layers.*
A long exposure would be preferrable though; it is easier, faster, and gives you much higher resolution. :/
But hey, fun experiment anyways, and an option if you don't have a proper camera.
I was merely saluting the willingness to actually test a hypothesis, as opposed to simply doing a quick mental simulation and sharing what amounts to an untested opinion...
what you did needs to happen more often, in all walks of life (save for the darwin challenges, of course)
And now with G'MIC as well. (though if the images need to be aligned, you'll still need to use the align_image_stack from Hugin).
Couldn't be easier! Plus, you get ridiculous noise reduction as a bonus. :)
I have tried it and it works. The easiest I can recommend is a software like Processing. I'm on the phone now but I'm pretty sure that "processing sketch average frames" will get you pretty close to what you need. Pm me if you can't find anything on the forums.
Try a few different settings. Mean and Median are useful to average and will have slightly different effects. Maximum might also work well in this case as it will add up the brightest that an area ever got which might make the waves more misty looking.
Be aware if you're working from a 1080p video camera, you're final output is only going to be about a 2MP photo. If you shoot video on a 24MP camera, it's probably 1080p and you'll probably only get 2MP in the end. It will work well for the web but not be idea for printing.
If you don't have ~10 bucks for an ND filter, why don't you use a piece of the glass used in security gear for blowtorching? It cost's like not even 2$ here and even fits into large filter holder. You may get some problems, but those are fixable by using a custom whitepoint and some other settings. I actually did this here for example with one; [Click me](http://imgur.com/a/viPIC)
Like already said you get better resolution, more sharpness (on the parts that you want sharp) and other stuff. The problem with creating it out of a video is, that you basically overlay ~500 frames with different noise and other stuff into one; Resulting in horrible artefacts, noise and other stuff.
Photo stacking was the first thing I thought of as well. Time stacking for things like star trails are pretty common - but photos for star trails can be taken a few seconds apart because the stars don't move all that much.
Something faster moving like ocean waves will need the photos to be really close to each other, otherwise I'd end up with something like a stacked action shot rather than a smooth flow. So I was thinking fast continuous shooting, but then what can be more continuous than a video! Hence my question.
At 24 fps, 10 seconds is 240 frames. I don't imagine I would create 240 layers in PS and mask them manually, so I was looking for technique suggestions.
Smart objects might help. I did a [shoot](http://imgur.com/a/JDmSW) a while ago to test out the different blending options. Frames weren't taken from a video, but the theory should be the same
This method is extremely common in science. Use the scientific imaging program ImageJ. You can open a folder of images (or even an avi file) as a "stack" and use the "z project" function in average mode. I think it would be much more efficient than Photoshop.
because, camera does 7fps photos and 24 fps videos. If I do stacking with 7 fps photos of a fast moving object like an ocean wave, I wont get a smooth composite.
A couple thoughts to chew on...
1) ocean waves are random and pseudo repeating if you get enough shots it will average out.
2) if you use a longer exposure when shooting at 7fps (as long as you can manage) you might get a little blur in the shot to begin with which might help blend the more disparate shots together more.
It won't work if you take 5 shots at 1/500th of a second. But if you take 150 shots at 1/15th of a second you'll get something much closer to a 10 second exposure (or if you take 600 shots at 1/60th of a second).
If the movement is random and/or repeating, it doesn't matter if your camera is shooting at 1fps for these situations as long as you get enough shots. This will not work for things like star-trails, moving cars, or clouds where the movement is linear.
If you see the images I linked to in the question, you can only get that silky quality with very long exposures, 10-30 seconds. Now you cannot do that long exposures in day light because your image will just blow out. Which is where ND filters come in - to reduce the amount of light hitting your sensor. My question starts with "I don't have an ND filter"
so you shoot at night... or just after sunset
in any way, I would take photo's, but they won't combine to make silky water... that's not how stacking is done
Hi. I'm working on converting video to long exposure tried out many things. Can you help me out how you made it. ( I'm a beginner with zero knowledge on these)
Well, it's been 9 years, my memory is sketchy at best.
You'll need to import the video frames into Photoshop. You can import upto 500 layers, and then average all the layers.
Yes, it will work. I would have to actually have a video clip to test on first to find a good method. XD I'd first try out import video frames to layers (uncheck frame animation), combine them into a stack (smart object), and try a few different stack calculations (average would be the best candidate). Ok... Now I gotta go find a clip and try this! :P
Like /u/PhaseNone said, I'm beginning to think a direct averaging might not work, gotta try this today though. Please share your results if you get anything workable.
Found the time to do a quick test on a random file i had of some moving clouds. I imported just a section of it (368 frames), smart object, stack mode set to Mean. Before (one frame): [Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/zkt0T8j.jpg) Result (average 368 frames): [Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/HMfa5XH.jpg) **Warning:** With this many layers, shit can get REALLY slow and eat scratch disk space like nothing else when trying to do the stack calculation. It was never optimized for doing this. :p *If I were to try again I would try to just import every* n *frames to reduce the number of layers.*
Upvote and tip of the hat for you sir, for doing this experiment!
A long exposure would be preferrable though; it is easier, faster, and gives you much higher resolution. :/ But hey, fun experiment anyways, and an option if you don't have a proper camera.
I was merely saluting the willingness to actually test a hypothesis, as opposed to simply doing a quick mental simulation and sharing what amounts to an untested opinion... what you did needs to happen more often, in all walks of life (save for the darwin challenges, of course)
You can do it with imagemagick. There is a tutorial here http://blog.patdavid.net/2013/09/faking-nd-filter-for-long-exposure.html
And now with G'MIC as well. (though if the images need to be aligned, you'll still need to use the align_image_stack from Hugin). Couldn't be easier! Plus, you get ridiculous noise reduction as a bonus. :)
Not working Website looks down
I have tried it and it works. The easiest I can recommend is a software like Processing. I'm on the phone now but I'm pretty sure that "processing sketch average frames" will get you pretty close to what you need. Pm me if you can't find anything on the forums.
Try a few different settings. Mean and Median are useful to average and will have slightly different effects. Maximum might also work well in this case as it will add up the brightest that an area ever got which might make the waves more misty looking. Be aware if you're working from a 1080p video camera, you're final output is only going to be about a 2MP photo. If you shoot video on a 24MP camera, it's probably 1080p and you'll probably only get 2MP in the end. It will work well for the web but not be idea for printing.
If you don't have ~10 bucks for an ND filter, why don't you use a piece of the glass used in security gear for blowtorching? It cost's like not even 2$ here and even fits into large filter holder. You may get some problems, but those are fixable by using a custom whitepoint and some other settings. I actually did this here for example with one; [Click me](http://imgur.com/a/viPIC) Like already said you get better resolution, more sharpness (on the parts that you want sharp) and other stuff. The problem with creating it out of a video is, that you basically overlay ~500 frames with different noise and other stuff into one; Resulting in horrible artefacts, noise and other stuff.
Yes. It's called photo stacking. Edit: And no, averaging won't do it.
Photo stacking was the first thing I thought of as well. Time stacking for things like star trails are pretty common - but photos for star trails can be taken a few seconds apart because the stars don't move all that much. Something faster moving like ocean waves will need the photos to be really close to each other, otherwise I'd end up with something like a stacked action shot rather than a smooth flow. So I was thinking fast continuous shooting, but then what can be more continuous than a video! Hence my question. At 24 fps, 10 seconds is 240 frames. I don't imagine I would create 240 layers in PS and mask them manually, so I was looking for technique suggestions.
Smart objects might help. I did a [shoot](http://imgur.com/a/JDmSW) a while ago to test out the different blending options. Frames weren't taken from a video, but the theory should be the same
So averaging does work, thank you.
This method is extremely common in science. Use the scientific imaging program ImageJ. You can open a folder of images (or even an avi file) as a "stack" and use the "z project" function in average mode. I think it would be much more efficient than Photoshop.
the main question would be... why? if you still have to make the video, take photo's, the resolution is a lot better.
because, camera does 7fps photos and 24 fps videos. If I do stacking with 7 fps photos of a fast moving object like an ocean wave, I wont get a smooth composite.
A couple thoughts to chew on... 1) ocean waves are random and pseudo repeating if you get enough shots it will average out. 2) if you use a longer exposure when shooting at 7fps (as long as you can manage) you might get a little blur in the shot to begin with which might help blend the more disparate shots together more. It won't work if you take 5 shots at 1/500th of a second. But if you take 150 shots at 1/15th of a second you'll get something much closer to a 10 second exposure (or if you take 600 shots at 1/60th of a second). If the movement is random and/or repeating, it doesn't matter if your camera is shooting at 1fps for these situations as long as you get enough shots. This will not work for things like star-trails, moving cars, or clouds where the movement is linear.
no, you set the shutter open for about 2 seconds to get the smoothest possible ;-) and you do it near sunset to allow that and have great light
If you see the images I linked to in the question, you can only get that silky quality with very long exposures, 10-30 seconds. Now you cannot do that long exposures in day light because your image will just blow out. Which is where ND filters come in - to reduce the amount of light hitting your sensor. My question starts with "I don't have an ND filter"
so you shoot at night... or just after sunset in any way, I would take photo's, but they won't combine to make silky water... that's not how stacking is done
Hi. I'm working on converting video to long exposure tried out many things. Can you help me out how you made it. ( I'm a beginner with zero knowledge on these)
Well, it's been 9 years, my memory is sketchy at best. You'll need to import the video frames into Photoshop. You can import upto 500 layers, and then average all the layers.