-
Three Month HD Timelapse
I have a project that requires two cameras recording a scene for three months. The client is requesting a timelapse shot that will show the changes of a film set over the two month period. Since the set is so large, we’re planning on using two cameras to cover the area. One of the challenges is no AC power at night due to it’s remote location. I’m looking for feedback and any suggestions from other’s who have had similar projects. Here’s the plan:
Use 2-Panasonic HVX200 cameras loaded with 8gig P2 cards recording 1 frame per second intervals (720p/59.94). The cameras will be housed at the top of metal or wood poles set in concrete in small “camera huts’ with overhangs to protect the lens from rain. The huts would have a back door that could be opened to access the cameras/P2 cards periodically. A RG59 cable would be run down to the base of the pole so a monitor can be plugged in to check camera status from time to time. To power the cameras I would use a small inverter hooked up to a car battery. During the day when the power is on, a trickle charger would charge battery. Currently the only P2 cards available are 8 gigs, but I may upgrade the firmware on the cameras so I can use the 16 gig cards when available. Thats the plan, any ideas would be appreciated. -
9 Replies
-
I’d use still cameras set for interval captures. Set up AC/DC supply in each hut & run a long USB cable to easy reach. Offload to a laptop as needed. Might not need to access cameras once set up – just offload files via cable (unless camera needs to be in “view” mode to offload, or if offloading stops the interval caps). Better than HD res at a fraction of the cost.
-
The use of stills cameras is the better idea you can find. Take that recomendation…By other side I thing in a 3 months timelapse a frame per second looks too much….I don’t know what will you film…but if it is a construction or some like that yo must calculate what you want….by example in three months you will get near 8 millions of seconds (and frames or pics)….near 8 millions of frames or pics at 30 fps means around 260,000 seconds of movie or 4,320 hours…I know i am drinkin’ at this moment…but
regards
-
Sorry…4,320 minutes and 72 hours…I know i am drinkin’ TO MUCH at this moment…but
regards
-
Yeah, how long do you want the shot to be? If the final shot’s only going to be 8 minutes or less, you can easily accomplish that all on just one 8GB card so there’s no need to go in and swap cards out etc. Just do the math; 8 minutes at 720/60p = 60 fps x 60 seconds x 8 = 28,800 frames. Three months = 2,592,000 seconds. So in general you’d want about one frame every 90 seconds, so you’d choose either 1 frame every minute or one frame every 2 minutes.
As for power, that’s a different issue…
—————–
Get the most from your DVX camera. The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available on ebay and at Amazon (https://www.fiftv.com/db) -
Thanks for the input. I’ll look into using still cameras as an alternative. The reasoning in using HD was to make it a little easier in post, since the project will be cut in HD. Regarding the number of frames captured, the logic in capturing 1 frame per second is to give more frames to work with in the edit. The editor can compress the frames into whatever length they want after editiong out all the night captures. According to my math….and please correct me if I’m wrong: 1 frame per minute equals 60 frames per hour. Multiply by 24 to get 1440 frames per day. Multiply by 90 days to get 129,600 frames over the 3 month period. Divide by 30 (30 frames per second) to get 4320 seconds. Divide by 60 to get 72 minutes of video. Divide in half to account for the night shots and get 36 minutes of video. The editor can now take that 36 minutes and compress it in the timeline to get whatever duration he/she wants. The extra frames give the editor more to play with, but I’m also considering using 1 frame every 5 minutes instead. The math on this would be: 1 frame every 5 minutes equals 12 frames per hour. Multiply by 24 to get 288 frames per day. Multiply by 90 (3 months) to get 25,920 frames after 3 months. Divide by 30 (30 frames per second) to get 864 seconds. Divide by 60 to get 14 minutes of footage. Divide in half to account for the night shots and you get seven minutes of day time shots at 5 frames per minute. Once again the editor can compress this in the timeline to get a 10-15 second shot. Perhaps the 1 frame every 5 seconds will be enough?
-
Yes – your math is seriously wrong. You’ve said, both in your original post and this most recent one, that you’re shooting “1 frame per second.” However, when you performed your calculation in this most recent post, you started with the rate of “1 frame per minute.”
-Scott
-
Wooops! Sorry about that! Yes you are correct, I stated the capture rate at 1 frame per second, instead of 1 frame per minute. MY BAD!
I’ve been looking into using a Digital SLR and have found some interesting systems. I’ll post more on this when I get it sorted out. Thanks again for your posts and sorry about the wrong info.Bill paris
-
Take a look at this system for digital time-lapse systems.
https://www.harbortronics.com/
It’s not really too much work to use a sequence of digital stills in a video sequence and the resolution beats anything that you’ll get with a video camera.
Regards,
Shane. -
Shane,
Thanks for the link……I’m going to order two of these systems for the job! I’ll post my experience once we get everything up and running.
Bill Paris
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up