<blockquote>
  <p>'Not sure if it works well if the camera is not fixed in one
  position.'</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Correct. If you're doing time-lapse you need to have the camera stabilised somehow, or it's going to look wobbly AF. If the camera is moving in real time, then when you speed it up it will be moving 30 times as fast, so something that might look like a slow pan turns into a whip pan.</p>

<p>If you average out 30 frames then you're going to see partial exposures of everything in those frames, which means if something is moving rapidly you'll get a semi transparent 'ghost' of it - the less frames it is in, the more transparent it will appear.</p>

<p>The reason that video works well is that they're using an electronic gimbal to stabilise the camera—that's what they're showing off. Even though the frame is constantly moving there's enough that is consistent across the whole second to achieve a sharp frame, and the camera motion is stable enough that when it's sped up it's still fluid.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-13T00:29:23.567Z
I should have added that I have the same gimbal. I guess I could improve the stability. I just wanted to make sure that my process is ok.
Allen Liu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-14T01:04:52.483Z
As a still image that looks all right to me. Given that you're doing timelapse people expect things like the ghosts. It's the content that makes timelapse interesting.
stib
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-13T00:23:57.543Z
2016-12-13T00:23:57.543Z
stib
<p>I am trying to create a hyperlapse and I'm following a certain method that is mentioned in this post:</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/03/time-warp-saigon-with-the-dji-osmo/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/03/time-warp-saigon-with-the-dji-osmo/</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So if you
  now want it to look like you shot an image every 4 seconds, you have
  to take 2 seconds of video and blend the frames to form a single
  exposure.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I created a script that extracts out the images from each frame of the video via ffmpeg. Now, I'm trying to create a single blended image from each 2 seconds of video which was shot at 30fps. I have tried imagemagick but the results are ok. There is quite a bit of ghosting going on along with some other artifacts.</p>

<p>Here is the command I used:</p>

<pre><code>convert frame*.jpg -evaluate-sequence mean output_file
</code></pre>

<p>I've also tried the median option but it came out even worse. Not sure if it works well if the camera is not fixed in one position.</p>

<p>I'm wondering if there are other options out there for blending images together. Am I on the right track with imagemagick?</p>

<p>Here is an example of a blended photo that has the green lights (from people carrying light sticks) that stays consistent throughout much of the video and ghosting on the left hand side.</p>

<p>Note: I am using the same gimbal as shown in the video.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ucNR1.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ucNR1.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-13T00:17:33.280Z
Can you post some images to show what you mean by 'ghosting' and 'other artefacts'?
stib
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-14T01:00:38.283Z
Since the ghosts must have been walking towards you they're moving relatively fast in the frame, so they're only in one frame in each position. That's kinda the nature of timelapse. You could remove them if there was some way of doing a statistical analysis of the pixels in the combined images and discarding the outliers, or you could avoid them by shooting at a much higher frame rate so that there are enough frames of the fast moving people to blend into a smooth blur. How high the frame rate would need to be would depend on the situation.
stib
<time-lapse>
Blending images together to form a single exposure
Allen Liu
# Blending images together to form a single exposure

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-12-12)

I am trying to create a hyperlapse and I'm following a certain method that is mentioned in this post:
http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/03/time-warp-saigon-with-the-dji-osmo/

So if you
  now want it to look like you shot an image every 4 seconds, you have
  to take 2 seconds of video and blend the frames to form a single
  exposure.

I created a script that extracts out the images from each frame of the video via ffmpeg. Now, I'm trying to create a single blended image from each 2 seconds of video which was shot at 30fps. I have tried imagemagick but the results are ok. There is quite a bit of ghosting going on along with some other artifacts.
Here is the command I used:
convert frame*.jpg -evaluate-sequence mean output_file

I've also tried the median option but it came out even worse. Not sure if it works well if the camera is not fixed in one position.
I'm wondering if there are other options out there for blending images together. Am I on the right track with imagemagick?
Here is an example of a blended photo that has the green lights (from people carrying light sticks) that stays consistent throughout much of the video and ghosting on the left hand side.
Note: I am using the same gimbal as shown in the video.

**Tags:** time-lapse

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you post some images to show what you mean by 'ghosting' and 'other artefacts'?  
> **username_1**: Since the ghosts must have been walking towards you they're moving relatively fast in the frame, so they're only in one frame in each position. That's kinda the nature of timelapse. You could remove them if there was some way of doing a statistical analysis of the pixels in the combined images and discarding the outliers, or you could avoid them by shooting at a much higher frame rate so that there are enough frames of the fast moving people to blend into a smooth blur. How high the frame rate would need to be would depend on the situation.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-12-13. Score: 1

> 'Not sure if it works well if the camera is not fixed in one
> position.'

Correct. If you're doing time-lapse you need to have the camera stabilised somehow, or it's going to look wobbly AF. If the camera is moving in real time, then when you speed it up it will be moving 30 times as fast, so something that might look like a slow pan turns into a whip pan.

If you average out 30 frames then you're going to see partial exposures of everything in those frames, which means if something is moving rapidly you'll get a semi transparent 'ghost' of it - the less frames it is in, the more transparent it will appear.

The reason that video works well is that they're using an electronic gimbal to stabilise the camera—that's what they're showing off. Even though the frame is constantly moving there's enough that is consistent across the whole second to achieve a sharp frame, and the camera motion is stable enough that when it's sped up it's still fluid.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I should have added that I have the same gimbal. I guess I could improve the stability. I just wanted to make sure that my process is ok.  
> **username_1**: As a still image that looks all right to me. Given that you're doing timelapse people expect things like the ghosts. It's the content that makes timelapse interesting.  

---

