-
New time lapse question
I got some good guidance in a thread begun a couple of days ago here on alternative methods of shooting time lapse scenes: With an HD video camera (and speeding up in post) or as a series of still images with a good digital SLR (which affords some interesting advantages).
This is a follow-up which I might have posted on the digital photography forum but there’s very little activity on that one.
Basic question: I want to shoot two or three frames per second and the digital SLR cameras that I have checked out don’t seem capable of that over, say, 15-30 minutes. That’s about how long I expect these sequences to take. Unless I can get past this technological hurdle I will have to shoot by a more standard method with the Panasonic HDC 900. But if anyone out there knows of a digital still camera that can reliably deliver a fairly rapid frame rate over 1/4 – 1/2 hour, I would appreciate hearing about it.
Thanks.
Ron
-
9 Replies
-
Seems to me there is software that could control the DSLR… isn’t there? I have some Canon software that came with the camera that could program this to happen. How may frames/min do you want to shoot? Would think that the camera’s specs would determine just how many stills you can capture per second…
I did some editing for Mammoth HD a while ago that was shot originally as time lapse with a DSLR. You might email Mammoth about how it was done… I think there had to be at least an hour’s time passed to do what is being produced for Mammoth’s library.
Clark Dunbar is the fellow to talk to.
Tell him I referred you…
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer
Author: “Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4” Click here
8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO, CD’s
-
Nikon D90 will shoot full HD video at 108024p.
Canon’s new machine does, too. Dunno if the frame rate is adjustable.
The discussions on this topic are volatile. From a videographer’s POV, it’s a toy. But it shoots through Nikkor glass! From a still shooter’s POV, HD video is a cool new medium.There are HUGE drawbacks and no one really has a firm handle on the workflow that I can tell. The focus and exposure controls become useless while shooting video. You’re limited. of course, to the capacity of your storage cards.
bogiesan
-
I believe most of the higher end SLRs can be controlled by third party trigger devices.
There is a great article/tutorial on this process on the Revostock archives. They are very helpful, I’m sure someone there can lead you to it.
Have a wonderful day.
-
Ron,
This isn’t the exact one, but it’s just as good.
https://media.digitalartwork.net/video/20070130_TimeLapseTutorial_ipod.mp4
Have a wonderful day.
-
Thanks very much to Jerry, bogie, and Chris. All of this is helpful. I just need to run some tests now. The obstacle, however, seems to be technological. My proposed time lapse sequences aren’t very long and I was hoping to do 2 or 3 frames per second reliably for 20-30 minutes. I don’t think that’s going to be possible (even with the Canon controller software although I will have to test that) with the buffers and flash memory cards in use today. So I’ll either settle for a longer interval or we’ll shoot on the HDX 900. Or both.
Now.. on to the tests.
Ron
-
Hey Ron-
Just curious why are you needing such a high frame rate for your TL? Even at 2 frames/sec for 20 min, you’re going to have a final movie that is 80 seconds long, which is fine if that is what you’re after but, from reading your previous thread, it seemed like you were looking for quicker shots to spice up a project.
-
Hi Evan,
It’s a reasonable question and your math is certainly correct. But I don’t plan on using 80 seconds of time lapse. If my limited past experience with time lapse is any guide, I won’t use the full piece, start-to-finish. We’re not shooting a definite beginning and end, such as the classics: flower opening or building construction, etc. I expect to use only part of the whole piece. Also, I am preparing for the opportunity to speed up the time lapse sequence even more in post. I like having more frames available when I do that so I can get the look I want. It’s smoother that way and there’s not a lot of disparate objects popping in and out of frame. They’re more likely to move in and move out.
And also….I acknowledge that I might be trying to be way too conservative here. It might be that I can achieve the results that I want with significantly fewer frames. That’s the reason for the testing sessions that we are planning.
— Ron
-
Gottcha. If I can make a suggestion then for your tests: The best way to achieve the smooth action you are looking for is not with more frames, but with a longer exposure. If you drag the shutter to a 1 or even 2 second exposure, you will get nice motion blur in each frame and will help the eye sense the movement from frame to frame instead of having objects jump between frames. Good luck!
-
Yes, agreed. We’ll be trying all the options.
Cheers,
Ron
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up