Discussion
I've been playing around with a bit of timelapse recently when I get the odd few hours spare so thought I'd make a change from the norm of posting photos only (seeing as though this is photography & video!).
Quite enjoying the whole timelapse thing as it is a totally different way of working compared to still photography. The only downside is what to do for two hours whilst your camera is clicking away
.
I still haven't managed to come up with a decent low-key intro for my videos though and the one on this one looks a bit too dramatic for my liking but I left it on anyway.
The stills were taken every five seconds for nearly two hours and unfortunately towards the end realised that I was going to miss the sun going behind the mountains in the distance. I also managed to catch the tripod/camera towards the end which resulted in the slight 'jump' towards the end.
http://vimeo.com/24974657
Does anyone know if there is anyway of embedding the player in a post on PH? So you can just click play instead of having to hyperlink?
Cheers all.
Quite enjoying the whole timelapse thing as it is a totally different way of working compared to still photography. The only downside is what to do for two hours whilst your camera is clicking away
.I still haven't managed to come up with a decent low-key intro for my videos though and the one on this one looks a bit too dramatic for my liking but I left it on anyway.
The stills were taken every five seconds for nearly two hours and unfortunately towards the end realised that I was going to miss the sun going behind the mountains in the distance. I also managed to catch the tripod/camera towards the end which resulted in the slight 'jump' towards the end.
http://vimeo.com/24974657
Does anyone know if there is anyway of embedding the player in a post on PH? So you can just click play instead of having to hyperlink?
Cheers all.
Very cool, I fancy trying this. It is a shame you missed the actual setting at the end as that would have made it really. Didn't notice the jump.
So potentially stupid question but is there a setting on your camera then so it will take the photo every five seconds? As I can't seem to find one on mine
So potentially stupid question but is there a setting on your camera then so it will take the photo every five seconds? As I can't seem to find one on mine
I've recently had a delve in to timelapse .... I used the interval timer
(it can get a bit tiresome waiting, cant it?)
photo every 15 sec and turned into a video using Windows movie maker with each pic having a duration of 0.1sec.
the results are encouraging, but there is a part of the video that goes from the set widescreen mode to 4:3 and back again. it reall disrupts the flow.
is this a normal issue with WMM?
what is the best software to use thae is either free of doesn't cost the earth.
(it can get a bit tiresome waiting, cant it?)
photo every 15 sec and turned into a video using Windows movie maker with each pic having a duration of 0.1sec.
the results are encouraging, but there is a part of the video that goes from the set widescreen mode to 4:3 and back again. it reall disrupts the flow.
is this a normal issue with WMM?
what is the best software to use thae is either free of doesn't cost the earth.
Rich K said:
I've recently had a delve in to timelapse .... I used the interval timer
(it can get a bit tiresome waiting, cant it?)
photo every 15 sec and turned into a video using Windows movie maker with each pic having a duration of 0.1sec.
the results are encouraging, but there is a part of the video that goes from the set widescreen mode to 4:3 and back again. it reall disrupts the flow.
is this a normal issue with WMM?
what is the best software to use thae is either free of doesn't cost the earth.
WMM... no, not normal(it can get a bit tiresome waiting, cant it?)
photo every 15 sec and turned into a video using Windows movie maker with each pic having a duration of 0.1sec.
the results are encouraging, but there is a part of the video that goes from the set widescreen mode to 4:3 and back again. it reall disrupts the flow.
is this a normal issue with WMM?
what is the best software to use thae is either free of doesn't cost the earth.
iPhone app 79p
Stiglet80 said:
Very cool, I fancy trying this. It is a shame you missed the actual setting at the end as that would have made it really. Didn't notice the jump.
So potentially stupid question but is there a setting on your camera then so it will take the photo every five seconds? As I can't seem to find one on mine
I bought a remote timer off eBay for £20, does the job for my 400D. If only the camera battery lasted a bit longer!So potentially stupid question but is there a setting on your camera then so it will take the photo every five seconds? As I can't seem to find one on mine
I did a mammoth 1 every 6 secs for two hours; just short of 2000 pictures at 15fps its rather good!I had a timelapse project in mind, but over a very different timescale, i.e. about 2 years. How would I work out how many images I need if I want it to run about 2 minutes? I originally though that 50fps was about normal, but I suspect that this would be for high end Tv/film. What is the minimum frame rate that would still give decent quality movement?
Also any hints on getting consistent lighting and positioning? The subject would be a human face. I was planning to have the camera tripod mounted and 'locked' to a background, with fixed lighting which can be also attached. But I'd need to get the subject into position consistently, and am reluctant to clamp their head into position for 2 years.
I don't mind if the end result has a slightly 'Peter Gabriel Sledgehammer' sort of feel.
Also any hints on getting consistent lighting and positioning? The subject would be a human face. I was planning to have the camera tripod mounted and 'locked' to a background, with fixed lighting which can be also attached. But I'd need to get the subject into position consistently, and am reluctant to clamp their head into position for 2 years.
I don't mind if the end result has a slightly 'Peter Gabriel Sledgehammer' sort of feel.
Mine was a promotion for a youth club I run. I set the d300s on a tripod and set it to fire every 6s. I set it to 1/60s and f4 on manual with auto iso to keep exposure consistent. It ran for two hours and about 1980 shots. When combined into a film it was too big to run so I trimmed it to widescreen format, 20cm wide at 75ppi. The quality is fine and fills a laptop screen. Essentially it shows the kids tearing around playing snooker, table tennis and a kick about. I tried 5 - 30fps at 5fps intervals and the best compromise of movement was 15fps. Normal TV is 25 and that was smoother but movement was too quick. It appears a balance must be struck between subject movement, shooting frequency and fps so experiment.
Another issue I faced was the frame counter in the camera went over 9999 so I had frames that weren't a numerical sequence. That meant exporting and renumbering them. However I started at 1 but the time-lapse software imported all the frames starting with 1 (1,10,100) then 2 etc. Couldnt work out the flicker until I spotted it and exported again starting at 0001.
All good fun and a challenge! I live about 3mls from the sea so that's my next subject!
Another issue I faced was the frame counter in the camera went over 9999 so I had frames that weren't a numerical sequence. That meant exporting and renumbering them. However I started at 1 but the time-lapse software imported all the frames starting with 1 (1,10,100) then 2 etc. Couldnt work out the flicker until I spotted it and exported again starting at 0001.
All good fun and a challenge! I live about 3mls from the sea so that's my next subject!
wendyg said:
I had a timelapse project in mind, but over a very different timescale, i.e. about 2 years. How would I work out how many images I need if I want it to run about 2 minutes? I originally though that 50fps was about normal, but I suspect that this would be for high end Tv/film. What is the minimum frame rate that would still give decent quality movement?
Also any hints on getting consistent lighting and positioning? The subject would be a human face. I was planning to have the camera tripod mounted and 'locked' to a background, with fixed lighting which can be also attached. But I'd need to get the subject into position consistently, and am reluctant to clamp their head into position for 2 years.
I don't mind if the end result has a slightly 'Peter Gabriel Sledgehammer' sort of feel.
You can either run the final clip at 25 or 30 frames per second which are the most common speeds.Also any hints on getting consistent lighting and positioning? The subject would be a human face. I was planning to have the camera tripod mounted and 'locked' to a background, with fixed lighting which can be also attached. But I'd need to get the subject into position consistently, and am reluctant to clamp their head into position for 2 years.
I don't mind if the end result has a slightly 'Peter Gabriel Sledgehammer' sort of feel.
If you were running a timelapse for 2 years with a 2 minute end result in mind you would need to take 4 images per day if at 25fps or 5 per day at 30fps. (to work it out start off with the frames per second of the final composition and times that by how many seconds the final clip will be (30fps*120secs=3600 frames), 3600/730(days)=4.9 frames per day (round to 5)). Hope that makes sense
. If you are doing one over years then there are a lot of variables to take in to account. Have a look at the forum at www.timescapes.org for some good advice and videos.
wendyg said:
Ian above was using 15fps. What's the minimum you can really get away with? For this subject i'm thinking even 5fps would work to demontrate what happens. Given the necessity of having a subject, I'd be pushing my luck to get 2 images per day.
That doesn't matter, it all depends how smooth you want it to look, this depends on how many images you take per second/minute/hour/day etc that counts. You could take 120 images over 2 years and have it run for 2 mins (1 frame per second and jerky), or you take 12,000 images and run it for 2 mins (100 frames/second and smooth). 12,000 images is only 16 images a day.I suppose it all depends on what your subject is? if it's grass growing 2 frames per day would probably be enough, which would work out as 12 frames per second on play back.
Does that make sense? Basically what 14-7 said, but more complicated
Edited by WorAl on Monday 13th June 00:15
WorAl said:
Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes real sense. For what I have in mind it may be less is more
Having said that, there may be some periods where change is happening more rapidly, and I could take more images day to day. I'd have to work out how to make the timescale the same even if the smoothness increases.Yes, that makes real sense. For what I have in mind it may be less is more
Edited by WorAl on Monday 13th June 00:15
sorry misquoted my comments into Al's text there
This video features some spectacular landscape timelapse work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGlTzH9xkXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGlTzH9xkXQ
I'm interested in pulling together an 'across Europe' timelapse of my upcoming Alpine adventure and the idea of using the iPhone is great as it saves my having a D300 hanging from a big sucker in the middle of the screen for the whole trip!
Which of the many 'timelapse' apps is the recommended one? Some create the film in phone, some create loads of individual photos for you to stitch later. I'm leaning towards the 'loads of photos' approach as it give me more creative control and I have Quicktime Pro to pull it all together.
Any thoughts and recommendations?
Which of the many 'timelapse' apps is the recommended one? Some create the film in phone, some create loads of individual photos for you to stitch later. I'm leaning towards the 'loads of photos' approach as it give me more creative control and I have Quicktime Pro to pull it all together.
Any thoughts and recommendations?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff