Posted by Todd Caudle on January 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM
I'm nearing the point where I think I know how to make some pretty cool time-lapse sequences, and here's a sample from this morning. This is something like 750 individual images [EDIT: see below], shot in medium jpeg resolution. I started running up against the buffer on my relatively fast card at around 550 images[EDIT: the first video is not the sequence that created the problems, the second one is], but upon experimenting once I got home, I will try it next time using jpeg-small/fine, which still yields a file somewhere around 2500 pixels wide. I shot 750 images in a row just testing that theory out, and didn't even flirt with the buffer. Once I let off the shutter button, the card didn't need to keep writing at all. I think it would fire as long as I kept my finger on the shutter button until I fill up a card, which would be many thousands of images.
I can't believe how many images it takes to make one of these things work! Any tips you care to pass along that will help me and anyone else in the group who wants to try this, please share here!
I've added a second video for comparison.
Vid #1: I was wrong on the frames involved. It's just shy of 500. I used my Canon remote cord, set the interval to one second, and the number of frames to the max, which is 99. I switched to live view, figuring I'd get less camera shake and smoother operation in general if the mirror wasn't slapping up and down between each frame. For some reason (not related to buffer), the remote switch, even though set at 99 frames, would shoot 50 frames and stop, at which time I pushed start and it would click off the remaining 49. I repeated this until I had just shy of 500 frames. I'll need to investigate why the switch would only do 50 frames at a time.
Note the faster cloud action when shooting at one-second intervals, which actually are nearly two seconds when you combine the interval with the process of the shutter firing.
Vid #2: This is 603 images, but this time, instead of using the intervalometer function of the remote switch, I simply set the camera for multiple shots (not multiple exposure, but moving it from the single shot drive to multi), set the camera to live view and just held down the shutter button on the remote switch and let it keep firing until I started running up against the buffer. This created roughly three exposures per second.
Note the slower clouds by having more frames over a shorter time period. Also, watch closely around the 13-second mark and you'll notice I caught a bird flitting by in one frame.
For both of these, I simply exposed like I would for any still photo, since all these are are series of still photos. To the best of my recollection, the first was 1/20th @ f16 and the second was 1/50th @ f11.
Once home, I opened Bridge and located and selected the images from a sequence. When shooting, I used jpeg-medium/fine for the images, which produced images measuring 4080x2720 pixels, much larger than needed. I batch resized the selected images to 1200x800 pixels, saving the sequence of resized photos into their own folder. I then downloaded Quicktime Pro 7, a no-brainer for $30, and once open, went to File>Open Image Sequence and navigated to the folder where my resized photos resided. Then I simply clicked on the first image (you don't need to select, nor will it allow you to select, all the files in the folder, just the first one), then selected a frame rate of 24 frames/second and clicked okay. That's it! For posting to the web, all I did was export and set the settings that youtube.com suggested on their site.
In the future I'll make sure to put a fully charged battery in (wasn't a problem this time, but I want to make sure it never is), and set the camera to small/fine jpeg, which still produces a file 2784x1856 pixels, more than enough real estate. I will also plan to take longer sequences, because, let's face it, 20-25 second clips of something cool are just teasers. Small/fine jpegs won't cause buffer problems, and I'll be able to fit several thousand onto a 16-gb card. I can't tell you how many thousands, because the counter on the camera maxes out at 999, and I shot hundreds of medium/fine jpegs yesterday before I ever started seeing the counter count down from 999.
If you have any questions, fire away!
Posted by Ken Wyatt on January 10, 2012 at 12:47 AM
George Lepp has been promoting this and he definitely recommends using "small JPEGs". He uses the "pro" version of Quicktime to put them all together.
Posted by Ken Wyatt on January 10, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Love the effect, by the way...
Posted by Jeremy Week on January 10, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Cool Todd, thanks for sharing!
Posted by Todd Caudle on January 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Yup, Ken, I used Quicktime Pro 7, super, super easy, and the software's only $30.
Posted by Jack Garrett on January 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM
I loved it Todd...you need to share how you created this...number of frames, time settings, etc.
Posted by Brian Jackson on January 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Posted by Don Grall on January 10, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Very cool effect. I've been wanting to try this sometime but need to buy an intervalometer first.
Posted by Paul Wegemann on January 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM
This is pretty darn cool, Todd. Nice work. When I saw this, I immediately thought how great it would be to shoot this with similar cloud conditions, but under moonlight.
Posted by Frank Damon on January 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Todd - this is terrific! Would love to know what camera you used for this and how you took the images. You are a man of patience and great steadiness if you didn't use a tripod
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM
I really like the smoother flow in version #2.
Thanks for all the workflow info. It will be something fun to try.
Posted by Bob Falcone on January 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM
VERY cool!
Posted by Dottie L Lloyd on January 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Very Cool Tood!
Posted by Dottie L Lloyd on January 10, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Oops I meant Todd! Must have been that hot toddy I had......hahahaha!
Posted by Joshua Hardin on January 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Awesome job Todd. Looking forward to seeing more of these!
Discussion
15 repliesI can't believe how many images it takes to make one of these things work! Any tips you care to pass along that will help me and anyone else in the group who wants to try this, please share here!
Pikes Peak streaming clouds - version 1
Pikes Peak streaming clouds - version 2
I've added a second video for comparison.
Vid #1: I was wrong on the frames involved. It's just shy of 500. I used my Canon remote cord, set the interval to one second, and the number of frames to the max, which is 99. I switched to live view, figuring I'd get less camera shake and smoother operation in general if the mirror wasn't slapping up and down between each frame. For some reason (not related to buffer), the remote switch, even though set at 99 frames, would shoot 50 frames and stop, at which time I pushed start and it would click off the remaining 49. I repeated this until I had just shy of 500 frames. I'll need to investigate why the switch would only do 50 frames at a time.
Note the faster cloud action when shooting at one-second intervals, which actually are nearly two seconds when you combine the interval with the process of the shutter firing.
Vid #2: This is 603 images, but this time, instead of using the intervalometer function of the remote switch, I simply set the camera for multiple shots (not multiple exposure, but moving it from the single shot drive to multi), set the camera to live view and just held down the shutter button on the remote switch and let it keep firing until I started running up against the buffer. This created roughly three exposures per second.
Note the slower clouds by having more frames over a shorter time period. Also, watch closely around the 13-second mark and you'll notice I caught a bird flitting by in one frame.
For both of these, I simply exposed like I would for any still photo, since all these are are series of still photos. To the best of my recollection, the first was 1/20th @ f16 and the second was 1/50th @ f11.
Once home, I opened Bridge and located and selected the images from a sequence. When shooting, I used jpeg-medium/fine for the images, which produced images measuring 4080x2720 pixels, much larger than needed. I batch resized the selected images to 1200x800 pixels, saving the sequence of resized photos into their own folder. I then downloaded Quicktime Pro 7, a no-brainer for $30, and once open, went to File>Open Image Sequence and navigated to the folder where my resized photos resided. Then I simply clicked on the first image (you don't need to select, nor will it allow you to select, all the files in the folder, just the first one), then selected a frame rate of 24 frames/second and clicked okay. That's it! For posting to the web, all I did was export and set the settings that youtube.com suggested on their site.
In the future I'll make sure to put a fully charged battery in (wasn't a problem this time, but I want to make sure it never is), and set the camera to small/fine jpeg, which still produces a file 2784x1856 pixels, more than enough real estate. I will also plan to take longer sequences, because, let's face it, 20-25 second clips of something cool are just teasers. Small/fine jpegs won't cause buffer problems, and I'll be able to fit several thousand onto a 16-gb card. I can't tell you how many thousands, because the counter on the camera maxes out at 999, and I shot hundreds of medium/fine jpegs yesterday before I ever started seeing the counter count down from 999.
If you have any questions, fire away!
Thanks for all the workflow info. It will be something fun to try.