> Yes and no. It is perfectly feasible to create a video > from a stream of photographs, with each picture > translating to a single frame of video, but you can't > just append it to something that's already been encoded. > The way that video is encoded, you can't just slap an > extra frame onto the end.
I don't get it, why is the encoding process so different? Isn't like instead of encoding at full speed, you "freeze" the process after each frame? If a buffer of some pictures is needed I can keep it. > I'm also going to say that you should be careful HOW you > encode your video, because if there's too much of a > dramatic difference between the frame and the one > following it, and you're not encoding with all I frames, No there won't be much difference between frames and I am not going to use all i-frames; I'd like to encode the video in a format like flashvideo or similar. Here you can find some examples encoded after the capture was finished: http://www.manoweb.com/alesan/timelapse/ bye Alessio
