# Time Lapse Test



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

As you all know im a human sponge atm so heres my latest thing ive been learning!




Really interested in this type of thing so i did this test to get the just as it all seems very complicated as theres so many variables! I feel the video is too fast but i went off guidelines of just under half the exposure in relation to the interval which in theis case was 3 sec interval and 1.3 sec exposure. Ive retried processing it at different fps (slower and faster) but this seems the best of the bunch. 250 shots makes 10 seconds at 25 fps.
Now i know the basics i'll be taking it outdoors! Watch this space
Phil


----------



## rhino (Jan 14, 2011)

Nice.

I don't understand the 'guidelines' or why you'd use a 1.3 second exposure though.

I've done a few of those myself for a giggle and used 10 second intervals (to make the video quicker and because I was capturing a larger portion of time) - but wasn't doing 5 second exposures! I can't see the exposure's relevance to the process other than making sure it is correct.

Unless I was in a controlled environment (like indoors) I would be leaving my exposure on auto and not fixing it. Imagine a 5 second exposure outdoors. With cloud cover changing constantly, you'd be getting over and under exposed images all the time.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

If you want faster or slower time lapse, do it by adjusting the interval, not doing it in post.

Look forward to seeing what you come up with though.


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

rhino said:


> Nice.
> 
> I don't understand the 'guidelines' or why you'd use a 1.3 second exposure though.
> 
> ...


I take your feedback mate and will try another with different settings/longer intervals. As i said its a bit murky at the mo as to which settings to use for what and im going of what i read online. This vid is my 1st attempt so we'll see how i go
Phil


----------



## rhino (Jan 14, 2011)

Love the effects of combining multiple settings. You see it in video a lot.

A sped up section - to introduce a subject, into slow motion to show whatever cool action is happening, into real time for the subject to exit.

Ala Top Gear


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

rhino said:


> Love the effects of combining multiple settings. You see it in video a lot.
> 
> A sped up section - to introduce a subject, into slow motion to show whatever cool action is happening, into real time for the subject to exit.
> 
> Ala Top Gear


Top Gear seem to be on the cutting edge dont they! 
Heres the guide i read and got the ratio but he does say it goes out of the window when the exposures get longer. For example star trails at maybe 30 second exposure would look great with 5 second intervals.
http://timothyallen.blogs.bbcearth.com/2009/02/24/time-lapse-photography/
Phil


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

The exposure's relevance is, as explained, that the human eye actually prefers blur over sharpness when it comes to video. The multi-second exposures will give great movement of moving objects, but when talking about cars for example, I'd say err towards 1/10 or so as that way you'll still get the effects but you won't lose the cars (unless, of course, that's what you want.....)

Bret


----------



## rhino (Jan 14, 2011)

bretti_kivi said:


> The exposure's relevance is, as explained, that the human eye actually prefers blur over sharpness when it comes to video.


I'm not sure I completely buy his reasoning for it TBH.
Interesting article though.

Will definitely run off a few tests and see what I think looks better. I'd have to think it comes down to personal preference.
Would be awesome to be able to do a side by side of the exact same scene...
Anyone got two cameras and wants to give it a shot?


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

rhino said:


> I'm not sure I completely buy his reasoning for it TBH.
> Interesting article though.
> 
> Will definitely run off a few tests and see what I think looks better. I'd have to think it comes down to personal preference.
> ...


When processing in QT Pro you can change the fps to get a different effect
I'll be doing some more vids in the near future to see where i can take it.
Phil


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I have two bodies and could possibly do this. I will maybe try it after the weekend.

Bret


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

On my latest attempt i took 500 shots but due to a slightly out of level jetty i wanted to batch edit them all at once in Lightroom 3 but when i made the video it hasnt worked properly! Its showing a few random shots but then lots of black flickering! Im confused....and annoyed considering how long my laptop took to do this action, 90 bloody minutes to export them!
Phil


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

GIZTO29 said:


> For example star trails at maybe 30 second exposure would look great with 5 second intervals.


with startrails you don't wan't any intervals between exposures as it will make gaps in the light trails

:thumb:


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

buckas said:


> with startrails you don't wan't any intervals between exposures as it will make gaps in the light trails
> 
> :thumb:


To be fair Drew i thought that but im qouting the guy who wrote the tutorial who is the photographer for Human Planet.
http://timothyallen.blogs.bbcearth.com/2009/02/24/time-lapse-photography/
Quote
Roughly speaking, your shutter speed should be just under half that of your interval. So, for a 3 second interval, a 1.3 second exposure is great. At longer intervals this rule ceases to apply, so for example, when shooting the stars at night, a 30 to 60 second exposure is usual depending on the star cover (at ISO 800, f2.8) with a 5 second interval between shots for super realistic movement. If you expose too long, the path of each star may begin to appear as a line in your picture and can look a little unrealistic. However, if it's an interesting effect that you're after, then expose as long as you want. To be safe, when you are shooting anything moving relatively slowly (eg clouds) for the best results, use a 1 to 2 second exposure for short clips. If your shot has people or cars moving through it then it is imperative to use this kind of exposure length otherwise your moving objects will appear as 'blips' on the screen, creating a very unrealistic time lapse. As a general rule of thumb, if you are leaving a long interval between each frame (eg. 30 seconds or above) then it is extremely important to use a slow shutter speed in order to make the movement of natural objects run smoothly between frames. Bear in mind also that time lapses containing people don't generally work very well with large intervals even if your exposure is long. Experience will be your best teacher here and as you practise you will discover what works best for you.
Phil


----------



## rhino (Jan 14, 2011)

Less talking, more video


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

buckas said:


> with startrails you don't wan't any intervals between exposures as it will make gaps in the light trails
> 
> :thumb:


On second thoughts Drew we arent doing star trails here, its a time lapse where the stars are moving as in the way we would see them in a video. Thats what the tutorial is for and what this thread was for. Heres a great example and i'd be interested to see what you could do with this type of photography




Phil


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

GIZTO29 said:


> Top Gear seem to be on the cutting edge dont they!
> Heres the guide i read and got the ratio but he does say it goes out of the window when the exposures get longer. For example star trails at maybe 30 second exposure would look great with 5 second intervals.
> http://timothyallen.blogs.bbcearth.com/2009/02/24/time-lapse-photography/
> Phil


If you watch the opening title sequence of the little britain "come fly with me" thats just been on (on i-player now) then you can see the check in sequence was layered up with the 2 of them in real time in front of a tracking camera recording at 1/8th speed then played back at normal. Very surreal effect has been used on top gear too also!


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

dubnut71 said:


> If you watch the opening title sequence of the little britain "come fly with me" thats just been on (on i-player now) then you can see the check in sequence was layered up with the 2 of them in real time in front of a tracking camera recording at 1/8th speed then played back at normal. Very surreal effect has been used on top gear too also!


Good to see there using our license fee money well!:thumb:

Heres my latest attempt.

Ive never added music before and for some reason Windows Movie Maker has compressed the vid so that 720 HD isnt available......


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

GIZTO29 said:


> On second thoughts Drew we arent doing star trails here, its a time lapse where the stars are moving as in the way we would see them in a video. Thats what the tutorial is for and what this thread was for. Heres a great example and i'd be interested to see what you could do with this type of photography
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeh that's fine - static star shots; timelapsed is much different to creating a startrail image whereas missing exposures in the timescale would show up as gaps in the circular trails after stakcing 

have been waiting to do star trails now for months, have got a few locations in mind but mixture of cloudy night and/or busy when it was clear has stopped me doing them so far. :wall:

Next clear night I'll be definately out :thumb:

Nice vid :thumb: need a dolly :lol:


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

the timescapes guys really know what they're doing. I think you need tracks and a decent dolly though, never mind the accurate motors to move it.

Bret


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

buckas said:


> yeh that's fine - static star shots; timelapsed is much different to creating a startrail image whereas missing exposures in the timescale would show up as gaps in the circular trails after stakcing
> 
> have been waiting to do star trails now for months, have got a few locations in mind but mixture of cloudy night and/or busy when it was clear has stopped me doing them so far. :wall:
> 
> ...


Cool, im sure yours will be epic! I have somewhere in mind also but am just trying to figure out the settings etc atm. 
Phil



bretti_kivi said:


> the timescapes guys really know what they're doing. I think you need tracks and a decent dolly though, never mind the accurate motors to move it.
> 
> Bret


Yeh, his vids are epic!! The behind the scenes ones are great aswell!


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

Heres my latest from Sunday. Newcastle Quayside 

__
https://flic.kr/p/5486664469
Phil


----------



## rhino (Jan 14, 2011)

Great effort!


----------



## Scotty Pro (Nov 12, 2008)

Phil
where the bloody hell do you find the time to do all this stuff ?

if you are not taking pics, cleaning the Mito, jumping over to Talkphotography as well as being here on DW, you must never sleep :lol:

great movie by the way :thumb:


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

Scotty Pro said:


> Phil
> where the bloody hell do you find the time to do all this stuff ?
> 
> if you are not taking pics, cleaning the Mito, jumping over to Talkphotography as well as being here on DW, you must never sleep :lol:
> ...


Well Scotty, there lies the problem. The MiTo hasnt been cleaned since i went the NED open day in October or sumic! I did the wheels with bilberry 2 weekends ago as i was worried i had killed them! My excuse is the weather.....
Cheers bud.


----------

