Topic: Higher level frame-averaging?

Hey. in Stopmotion Pro 7 you can set your frame averaging level up to 20. Is this better the higher I put it? I use the QCK 4000 and plan on using it for some time, ( I want to first make a proper film before getting the fancy stuff like cams) So does it make quality better the higher I put it?


-Tejas VIM

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

It makes the animation smoother, not the quality. The downside is you have to take many more frames for a bit smoother animation.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BGanimations/Signatures/final_400x100.png

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

It makes each frame less grainy. It only makes your animation smoother in that there is no swirling grain on screen. I use 10 and that seems ample. Anything over that and you have to wait an incredibly long time between each frame as it takes a whole bunch of pictures.

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

mini/sweat  Oops, I thought he said frame rate. My bad.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BGanimations/Signatures/final_400x100.png

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

No prob BG, thank you 0ldScratch! I right now have it set to 15 and I am pretty happy with its fastness. mini/bigsmile

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

I use a QCPro9000 and usually use only 5 frames for averaging.  I've not observed that anything over 5 makes any noticeable improvement, especially when the captured frames are flying by at 15fps playback.

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

I think RevMen or someone else posted a frame averaging test years ago on BF. Turns out that between 10 and 20 you can't really see much improvement.

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

The more I think about it, the more I think the right number probably depends on how bright your shot is.  In really low light, images are much grainier and would therefore benefit more from having a much higher frame averaging rate.  Maybe I can get by with only using 5 when I'm working on bright shots.

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

AncientBricks wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I think the right number probably depends on how bright your shot is.  In really low light, images are much grainier and would therefore benefit more from having a much higher frame averaging rate.  Maybe I can get by with only using 5 when I'm working on bright shots.

Good point. Usually, the more light comes into the webcam, the less grain there is to start with. Still, frame averaging will improve your picture quality.

Re: Higher level frame-averaging?

I only expected a few people to comment on this, thanks guys! mini/bigsmile I am comfortable with 10 and 15 at it so thanks! I might get a Logitech Quickcam Pro 9000 in December, so quality should get higher by then! Thank you guys again for the helpful info!

-Tejas VIM Studios

PS I will try to get halogen lamps soon, this might give more light thus making better lighting, also if you don't mind AncientBricks, could you post a picture of your setup?