digital photography and timelapse?

[jb_617]

yes, a small generator would be a good idea, they are quite inexpensive and efficient. If you have the money though, a 16mm with a time release shutter control would be good. I don't have any prices but they can't cost a lot.


-------------------

I can't sign!

[Alex]

Originally posted by bigmasi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jb_617:
If you're brave enough to take your camera to bits then you could try this:

http://www.hackaday.com/entry/6450224134512192/

I doubt if a laptop would be a very good option for time-lapse as their batteries do not last very long. Unless you run an extension cable up the mountain!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don?t want to start hacking anything. Just not my thang...

I might not take the laptop to a mountain top, but I could. I only need an agregator (sorry my english... the thing that drinks gasoline and poops electricity) and I can get that from every willage... Or I could just take the photos to memorycards and download them to my laptop later on. In that case I need a lot of memory cards so maybe the agregator and some petrol will be cheaper. Well, I?m still not sure that this could work so my mind is very much open for the 16mm film. In that area there?s also a whole lot more experienced people around to learn from.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe you were serious about the generator but I find your idea about the generator to be explosively funny. Communing with nature as your generator blows out big plumes of sooten ash and 90 decibles of noise seems oxymoronic at best.

While you're at it you could use the generator to launch rain pellets into the sky. Maybe you could figure out a way to wake up a volcano with volcano pellets expunged from your generator detonator.

You could rent a mule to pull the generator up the mountain.

-----------------------------------

Now, from a technical point of view, the biggest problem with the digital "revolution" is downconvertig and upconverting. If you shoot the digital stills at the highest possible quality, chances are you will need a very powerful and expensive computer and software to do your editing with.

Chances are your digital signal will have to be "downconverted" to standard video unless you want to forgo standard editing options.

I know that HD editing is available to some extent and in theory doing HD time-lapse makes sense because ultimately you are using a relatively small amount of frames, but I recommend you keep doing google searches until you find someone who had already done it and is willing to explain how it is done and what it ultimately costs.

And should you succeed don't be surprised if your final digital master is transferred to 35mm, and at a very large cost. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

What is proving to be the simplest approach to time from a digital point of view is to simply shoot mini-dv in real time, then take the footage and speed it up in post.

The Apprentice does this all the time (I'm assuming the cameras are speeded up mini-dv but I don't know)

[jb_617]

What is proving to be the simplest approach to time from a digital point of view is to simply shoot mini-dv in real time, then take the footage and speed it up in post.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, if you want footage over a long time, i.e. a whole day, the batteries on the camera will be dead. Also, I doubt if you could get a tape that's long enough.

Still, It might work for an hour or so.


------------------------

Who thought signatures up anyway?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 18, 2004 04:34 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]</font>

[Alex]

And suddenly you have your reason for the advantage of film. Most computers have spinning harddrives constantly on and therefore require a constant power source and a relatively pristine environment to avoid malfunctioning.

A film camera can pretty much just chill between shots.

The most expensive digital still cameras can now store several hundred shots but I don't know at what level of quality.

But it probably takes a heck of lot longer to manage those individual shots into a time-lapse sequence than just transfering a piece of film.

If one were interested in a true guerilla style of time-lapse, one would actually bring FIVE super-8 time-lapse/time-exposure cameras (all fitting in one case) and have a blast.

[jb_617]

Yeah I agree, film (8 or 16mm) would be the way to go. Like I said earlier.

I love the multiple super-8 idea. That would be awesome!


---------------------

"This is aaaaa....what day is this?" - The Big Lebowski.

[bigmasi]

At the moment I?m looking info on this kind of system...

Computer:
FSC AMILO M1425 P-M1.7/512MB/80GB/DVDRW
(with a faster external hard drive)

Edit:
Pinnacle Liquid

Camera:
Canon EOS300D (or 1D MarkII)

I read that with the camera there comes a program called Remote Capture, but I?m afraid that it turns out to be a simple program that you can?t do any ramps on the timelapse. Well, we?ll see. I ?m positive I will find a program that works like an intervalometer. Wish me luck...

After the filming (camera can take raw and jpg -pictures simultaneously) I would simply import the images to the editing program and see the result instantly (without any color corrections or fx) so the next day I could do the filming again if there would be problems on the exposure or something...

The good thing is that the production starts about a year from now and if I get this system quickly I?ll have months and months to test it here where I live and learn to get the best results out of it.

If anyone of you guys are interested on doing this stuff also I?m ready on sharing experiences in about 1-2 months from now... (I hope)