Last holiday I started to take lots of sequential photos of different events. And when I scrolled quickly through the camera it created a kind of stop-animation type effect. E.g. I took lots of pictures of my friends as we walked to the shops, scrolling though those quickly using the scroll wheel looks like a sped up 'stop motion'.
I want to replicate this in FCPX, especially since I can basically make a 4k video since they are still images, but I don't know how. Essentially it's just importing lots of pictures and making them play at 5fps or so, however for a lot of scenes I do not have that many photos for so will need a lower fps. And for other scenes I have a lot more photos with smaller in-between motion so I'd like to speed up the fps. So some kind of variable fps timeline is required. I'm completely new to FCPX after doing only a little basic editing in Vegas years ago.
create a New Project, e.g. 1080/30fps
apply your stills to it (select + E)
select stills in timeline, hit CTRL-D : now you're allowed to set a duration, e.g. '3' = each pic is shown 1/10sec aka 10fps...
playback, adjust Durations to your needs
Can I ask "Why 4K?"
Why do you Need to create a 4K project, where and how is this to be delivered?
There is little need to create a super HD project if all you will do is send to web.
In asking about conforming into 4K dimensions, think you may be confusing "Resolution" (dpi) with "Format" ratio like "16X9" ??? Two separate parameters.
4X3/19X9 and many others control the ratio that is the viewer and as Karsten says, there are some general control for "conforming" but this will be far from automatic if you want to "crop" and "position" the photo for the best framing. You'll need to manipulate each photo for best results.
As far as manipulating the timing, in addition to what Karsten says, you can change duration of a single photo (clip) by dragging on the top or tail of a clip. You can select multiple clips in the Timeline and use the duration panel (Control+D) to change the duration of selected clips including non sequential clips.
VidGreg wrote: … you may be confusing "Resolution" (dpi) … -
<cough> with all respect, Greg, but:
Resolution ≠ dpi
… not even close! Video has no dots-per-inch; my tiny, 5" Liliput preview monitor has the same resolution as the 80" plasma in the conference room: 1920x1080… but, me too lazy for the math, very diff. 'dpi'
dpi is an 'advice' for printers: 'pour these 300 pixels along 25.4 millimetre '…
Resolution usually is used in reference to the frame size (height & width), aspect ratio would match that. But on a computer screen (and thus the web), video is normally displayed at 72 DPI. But yes, video technically has no dots per inch measurement, it's not measured against inches. TV screens are measured diagonally in inches, but not in dots per inch. But, it does help to explain re-sizing issues sometimes.
FCPX.guru wrote: … on a computer screen (and thus the web), video is normally displayed at 72 DPI. …
… a 17" 1920x1080 monitor has the same 'dots-per-inch' as a 30" 1920x1080 display? c'mon Ben, don't kiddin' me
Again, the 'dpi' is an 'file internal' advice to a printer, how to 'distribute' a specific amount of pixel onto a specific length.... no such thing in video, try yourself: create a 960x540 rectangle in Photoshop (or any painting.app of your choice), two versions, one with 300dpi, another with 1 (one!) dpi = both rectangles will look same in a 'fullHD' project, filling 50% of screen estate.
diff. story if you print the same two files: first one will be a tiny 2" rectangle (at last smaller than on any monitor), the other will kill you printer, 'cause it spit outs some hundred sheets of paper
a Magazin cover with 300dpi has a higher 'resolution' than a 48dpi print on some needle printer, no doubt. But in context of video - dpi no use.
… and then there's ppi … to get completely off-topic ...
Doesn't matter computer monitor size or resolution, the size of a video at "normal" size will be measured on that screen at 72dpi. That determines how much of the screen it will take up. Simple engineering fact. But I guess my 20+ years as an IT engineer have made me stupid about such things. You're correct Karsten, nothing I say makes sense. I guess I deserve all the personal jabs you take at me. No clue why... should I just leave the forum, Karsten? You are obviously way more qualified than I am...