My First Attempt at Time Lapse

**DRabbit** · 05-06-2011, 06:10 PM

Be prepared to be completely underwhelmed...

You Tube

Any tips you can offer... I'm all ears.

The one thing I did learn: remember to lock down white balance - duh *smacks forehead*

imtheguy · 05-06-2011, 07:30 PM

I found it interesting to watch and liked the music selected also. Looks like fun to put together.

**blackcloudbrew** · 05-06-2011, 07:32 PM

Note to self. Never do time lapse shots anywhere near seagulls...boats are cool though.

Nice effort, actually but loose the seagulls.

glee46 · 05-06-2011, 07:58 PM

1st part was pretty good. Nice music and, ya, the birds were kind of a pain, but you would have to stand out there with a shotgun to keep them out. Don't think that would go over well.
Overall, the best part is that you gave it a good go, & had a blast doing it. It can only get better as you work on them. Thanks for sharing it.

**DRabbit** · 05-07-2011, 03:10 PM

I wanna try a lot more time-lapse... however, there's part of me that doesn't want to use the K-5 to do it. I can't imagine shooting 1000 frames per outing is a great idea for any camera that you hope lasts you a long long time... LOL

vanakaru · 05-08-2011, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by DRabbit

I wanna try a lot more time-lapse... however, there's part of me that doesn't want to use the K-5 to do it. I can't imagine shooting 1000 frames per outing is a great idea for any camera that you hope lasts you a long long time... LOL

There is a point in that. you will not make a movie that is larger than 1920x1080. Any cheap P&S camera can take pix in good quality that size and there is no wear of mirror up mechanics. Many are capable of timed shooting as well.
But then again your camera will be obsolete in 5 years in any way, maybe sooner. So do we need to bother?

**DRabbit** · 05-10-2011, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by vanakaru

There is a point in that. you will not make a movie that is larger than 1920x1080. Any cheap P&S camera can take pix in good quality that size and there is no wear of mirror up mechanics. Many are capable of timed shooting as well.
But then again your camera will be obsolete in 5 years in any way, maybe sooner. So do we need to bother?

I don't worry so much about "obsolete" as opposed to still useful to me. I've had my M8 for almost 4 years now, and I won't be looking to replace it or get rid of it, still, for quite a long time. Though by industry standards it may be "obsolete" - it's isn't to me!

Typically, shutter life isn't a concern for me. I'm not a run-and-gunner and actually probably shoot less than most people on my digital cameras. However, going out and shooting timelapse... I'd imagine that could introduce a lot of wear and tear on the shutter. It's a concern. I wouldn't mind so much with a cheapo camera (like the GH1 I got for $350), but for something I spent $1500, I don't want to have to replace it in a year because of something I just want to experiment with.

I dunno... I may end up looking at some of the Pentax or Ricoh pocket cameras that have intervalometers built-in. Like you said, and most of us realize, even a 5mp camera produces timelapse photos big enough for HD video. If something I buy for $200 on ebay fails after a year of hard-use, no great loss.

**jford** · 05-20-2011, 07:30 PM

I like your video.
I am using a non-Pentax P&S under computer control to time-lapse photograph some things in our lab, using the open-source software, gphoto2. You might check into it a bit. Using an "obsolete" digital camera under control of an equally "obsolete" computer may be just what you want.

**DRabbit** · 05-20-2011, 10:14 PM

Thanks JFord. I actually just got a remote intervalometer for the GH1 this week, and I'm also looking into getting something the Ricoh GX100. I like the GH1 idea because I can use my Pentax lenses

If I have time this weekend I may play a bit with it... we'll see

FullertonImages · 05-21-2011, 09:49 PM

Not a bad first effort. I would say that the subject matter and lighting were fairly boring, but that might just be because this was just a test and not a big effort. But the biggest problem is that the shutter speed was way to fast, which is why it looks insanely choppy. Sometimes the choppy timelapse thing can look good, but IMO, this isn't one of them. Usually you want a smooth timelapse, especially when there is some kind repeptive movement in the frame, like waves or cars or windmills or whatever. To get a smooth look, you should still be in the ballparkof the 180 degree rule use in traditional film making. Which basically means that your shutter speed should be twice as fast as your frame rate. So if you are shooting at an interval of every 30 seconds (your frame rate), your shutter speed should be 15 seconds of a second. Or more simply, whatever your interval, the shutter should be open half of that time. Films are traditionally shot at 24 fps with a shutter speed of 1/48, which is the origin of the rule, and is kind of the standard for smoothness. Slower than that starts looking smeary and faster than that starts looking choppy. Neither is always wrong, but for the most part, unless for purposes of intentional artistic effect, the 180 degree shutter rule should be followed.

Keep it at! Timelapses are super fun, but take so long!

**DRabbit** · 05-22-2011, 06:12 AM

Thanks Ben...
I didn't know that the 180 rule was used for timelapse too... I'll have to play around more with that.
I know the subject matter wasn't the most exciting. I'll pick a better subject next time.

Timelapse is tedious, but the outcome is fun

FullertonImages · 05-22-2011, 08:58 AM

Well, it's certainly not a Law. But from everything I've seen, TL's generally look best when they are shot in the ballpark of the 180° rule. At the end of the day, it's a creative decision, just like anything else. But when broken, it's should be done intentionally, out of an understanding of why the rule exists, and because a different effect is desired.

I really need to get out and shoot more TL's. They're super fun. Just got be more adamant about carving out the for them.

05-08-2011, 01:30 AM	#6
vanakaru Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Tallinn Photos: Gallery Posts: 162	Originally posted by DRabbit I wanna try a lot more time-lapse... however, there's part of me that doesn't want to use the K-5 to do it. I can't imagine shooting 1000 frames per outing is a great idea for any camera that you hope lasts you a long long time... LOL There is a point in that. you will not make a movie that is larger than 1920x1080. Any cheap P&S camera can take pix in good quality that size and there is no wear of mirror up mechanics. Many are capable of timed shooting as well. But then again your camera will be obsolete in 5 years in any way, maybe sooner. So do we need to bother? Last edited by vanakaru; 05-08-2011 at 01:35 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TIME LAPSE on K7	leadguitarest	Video Recording and Processing	29	06-01-2011 09:40 AM
K-5 Time lapse	bergwerk	Video Recording and Processing	4	11-17-2010 06:25 AM
Alta Time Lapse	netrex	Video Recording and Processing	6	01-13-2010 11:58 AM
Time Lapse Software	TonyD	Photographic Technique	4	11-10-2009 08:44 AM
Time lapse frame	Jasvox	Post Your Photos!	10	09-22-2009 10:36 PM

05-06-2011, 07:30 PM	#2
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I found it interesting to watch and liked the music selected also. Looks like fun to put together.

05-06-2011, 07:32 PM	#3
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	Note to self. Never do time lapse shots anywhere near seagulls...boats are cool though. Nice effort, actually but loose the seagulls.

05-06-2011, 07:58 PM	#4
glee46 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: North of San Francisco, California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 598	1st part was pretty good. Nice music and, ya, the birds were kind of a pain, but you would have to stand out there with a shotgun to keep them out. Don't think that would go over well. Overall, the best part is that you gave it a good go, & had a blast doing it. It can only get better as you work on them. Thanks for sharing it.

05-07-2011, 03:10 PM	#5
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	I wanna try a lot more time-lapse... however, there's part of me that doesn't want to use the K-5 to do it. I can't imagine shooting 1000 frames per outing is a great idea for any camera that you hope lasts you a long long time... LOL

05-10-2011, 10:31 AM	#7
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Originally posted by vanakaru There is a point in that. you will not make a movie that is larger than 1920x1080. Any cheap P&S camera can take pix in good quality that size and there is no wear of mirror up mechanics. Many are capable of timed shooting as well. But then again your camera will be obsolete in 5 years in any way, maybe sooner. So do we need to bother? I don't worry so much about "obsolete" as opposed to still useful to me. I've had my M8 for almost 4 years now, and I won't be looking to replace it or get rid of it, still, for quite a long time. Though by industry standards it may be "obsolete" - it's isn't to me! Typically, shutter life isn't a concern for me. I'm not a run-and-gunner and actually probably shoot less than most people on my digital cameras. However, going out and shooting timelapse... I'd imagine that could introduce a lot of wear and tear on the shutter. It's a concern. I wouldn't mind so much with a cheapo camera (like the GH1 I got for $350), but for something I spent $1500, I don't want to have to replace it in a year because of something I just want to experiment with. I dunno... I may end up looking at some of the Pentax or Ricoh pocket cameras that have intervalometers built-in. Like you said, and most of us realize, even a 5mp camera produces timelapse photos big enough for HD video. If something I buy for $200 on ebay fails after a year of hard-use, no great loss.

05-20-2011, 07:30 PM	#8
jford Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Indiana PA USA Posts: 1,396	I like your video. I am using a non-Pentax P&S under computer control to time-lapse photograph some things in our lab, using the open-source software, gphoto2. You might check into it a bit. Using an "obsolete" digital camera under control of an equally "obsolete" computer may be just what you want.

05-20-2011, 10:14 PM	#9
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Thanks JFord. I actually just got a remote intervalometer for the GH1 this week, and I'm also looking into getting something the Ricoh GX100. I like the GH1 idea because I can use my Pentax lenses If I have time this weekend I may play a bit with it... we'll see

05-21-2011, 09:49 PM	#10
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Not a bad first effort. I would say that the subject matter and lighting were fairly boring, but that might just be because this was just a test and not a big effort. But the biggest problem is that the shutter speed was way to fast, which is why it looks insanely choppy. Sometimes the choppy timelapse thing can look good, but IMO, this isn't one of them. Usually you want a smooth timelapse, especially when there is some kind repeptive movement in the frame, like waves or cars or windmills or whatever. To get a smooth look, you should still be in the ballparkof the 180 degree rule use in traditional film making. Which basically means that your shutter speed should be twice as fast as your frame rate. So if you are shooting at an interval of every 30 seconds (your frame rate), your shutter speed should be 15 seconds of a second. Or more simply, whatever your interval, the shutter should be open half of that time. Films are traditionally shot at 24 fps with a shutter speed of 1/48, which is the origin of the rule, and is kind of the standard for smoothness. Slower than that starts looking smeary and faster than that starts looking choppy. Neither is always wrong, but for the most part, unless for purposes of intentional artistic effect, the 180 degree shutter rule should be followed. Keep it at! Timelapses are super fun, but take so long!

05-22-2011, 06:12 AM	#11
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Thanks Ben... I didn't know that the 180 rule was used for timelapse too... I'll have to play around more with that. I know the subject matter wasn't the most exciting. I'll pick a better subject next time. Timelapse is tedious, but the outcome is fun

05-22-2011, 08:58 AM	#12
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Well, it's certainly not a Law. But from everything I've seen, TL's generally look best when they are shot in the ballpark of the 180° rule. At the end of the day, it's a creative decision, just like anything else. But when broken, it's should be done intentionally, out of an understanding of why the rule exists, and because a different effect is desired. I really need to get out and shoot more TL's. They're super fun. Just got be more adamant about carving out the for them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search