3 ms·

Video stabilization + more FPS / slower rate than the "every 10 frames timelapse" + feel good inspirational music = this I would guess that I could upload a sh

• Renaud 12y ago
  >I would guess that I could upload a shaky video to youtube to get it smoothed out, download it, and speed it up with similar to their rate and get similar results. No you certainly wouldn't. Watch the technical video at the bottom of the page. It will explain why this is not trivial to do and why standard stabilisation technologies aren't useful to smooth out time lapses.
  • boyaka 12y ago
    Well, I admit that I was pretty ignorant about the work being done on this project in regards to time-lapsed video. I guess I could add to my previous statement that they also cut out irrelevant frames (parts of the video that aren't in the camera path). I don't think this would be THAT difficult to do manually, but I admit that the technical video showing how they were able to graph/visualize the irrelevant frames is pretty cool, and the interesting resulting effects people are discussing in this thread (disappearing/appearing objects, the video game loading effects) are amusing. I never said that it was trivial, just that similar stuff has already been done and made a "standard stabilization technology", automatically and easily just by uploading to youtube. It seems that youtube's techniques aren't necessarily completely different: there's a screenshot of an article from Google in this video [1] called "Auto-directed Video Stabilization With Robust L1 Optimal Camera Paths". However, I do appreciate and shouldn't disrespect the specialized work being done for time-lapsed videos. My apologies. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgAdeuxkUyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgAdeuxkUyY
• davmre 12y ago
  If you'd looked at the site, the authors actually do the exact comparison you suggest: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/hyperlapse/supplementary/html/bike1_timelapse_after_stab.html http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/hype... It's better than a raw timelapse, but not (IMHO) nearly as good as their results. From the paper intro: Video stabilization algorithms could conceivably help create smoother hyper-lapse videos. Although there has been significant recent progress in video stabilization techniques (see Section 2),they do not perform well on casually captured hyper-lapse videos. The dramatically increased camera shake makes it difficult to track the motion between successive frames. Also, since all methods operate on a single-frame-in-single-frame-out basis, they would require dramatic amounts of cropping. Applying the video stabilization before decimating frames also does not work because the methods use relatively short time windows, so the amount of smoothing is insufficient to achieve smooth hyper-lapse results. And later on (section 7.1): As mentioned in our introduction, we also experimented with traditional video stabilization techniques, applying the stabilization both before and after the naive time-lapse frame decimation step. We tried several available algorithms, including the Warp Stabilizer in Adobe After Effects, Deshaker 1, and the Bundled Camera Paths method [Liu et al. 2013]. We found that they all produced very similar looking results and that neither variant (stabilizing before or after decimation) worked well, as demonstrated in our supplementary material. We also tried a more sophisticated temporal coarse-to-fine stabilization technique that stabilized the original video, then subsampled the frames in time by a small amount, and then repeated this process until the desired video length was reached. While this approach worked better than the previous two approaches (see the video), it still did not produce as smooth a path as the new technique developed in this paper, and significant distortion and wobble artifacts accumulated due to the repeated application of stabilization.