process version does not match lrtimelapse

#Process version does not match lrtimelapse how to
#Process version does not match lrtimelapse 1080p
#Process version does not match lrtimelapse full

#Process version does not match lrtimelapse full

In many ways, using sRaw will be easier and faster than using full rez JPGs (and in some ways, it won't). Different strokes for different people, so your workflow will likely not be the same as mine (highly doubtful as mine included a home brewed piece of software ) Experimentation can really be done with sRaw.

I suggest you try to figure out a workflow first. However, if you want full quality, you will have to use full resolution, which will give you enough for 4K and 5K resolution, as well as true noise reduction potential (which sRaw and mRaw won't give you).

#Process version does not match lrtimelapse 1080p

5MP will be good enough for a 1080p lapse, and it will give you full flexibility with adjustments. If you're just learning and want to practice your workflow, while maintaining a small file size, you can use the smallest raw size. I have 60TB worth of raw files from our NASA time lapse movies in my server closet, so if nothing else, I am crazy and not afraid of large files Raw files will give you the needed flexibility for exposure ramping and for WB adjustments over time, the two most important variables. If you're aiming at 1080p, you probably don't even need max camera resolution. I did a time lapse in raw, and immediately switched to jpg for my next one just because of the huge difference in file sizes and number of shots that fit on a card. That's why I have a huge problem with the current manufacturers who offer 'time-lapse movie' only mode on many new 2014 digital cameras. I guess what I am trying to say, if you are going to capture an amazing footage, converting it to 1080 and deleting the source files would be a mistake. in 2 years 4K will be the standard and I can definitely see 8k TVs within the next 10 years. Once you got the workflow going go with large files sizes. You can certainly go with mRaw,but I found them barely(!!) better than jpeg for editing. You can easily shoot jpeg, especially if you aren't editing much. You can definitely learn with much smaller file sizes. Hopefully a real expert will chime in, like Stan Jirman ( ). You can always adjust exposure on jpg's in a batch, no need for Raw. Are you really going to tweak each frame so carefully that you can take advantage of the full benefits of Raw?

I've only done a couple of time lapses, but both required 2,000 or 3,000 frames. I don't think I would use Raw, especially if you are just learning. I'm trying to keep the workflow time to a minimum as my system kinda choked on the 300 20 mp files I tossed at it the other day for a test run. Until I become good at this Time lapse process, is there any reason from a learning stand point to use huge 20 mp images? Will small 5 mp quality be sufficient during the learning process until I get my technique and work flow process down? Or will these be to low of quality to see subtle adjustments during post?

Standard 20 mp / Med 11 mp or small 5 mp. I own a Canon 70D and have the option of 3 sizes. However I can not find any suggestions as to what file size to record the raw images at.

#Process version does not match lrtimelapse how to

I've been doing a lot of reading about how to create Time lapse and the one thing that I consistently read is to use Raw for obvious reasons.