DIYPhotography just published an article on the time lapse shoot I did during the Canon Global Expo in New York back in September.

120,000 Photos Were Shot Over 16 Days For This Time-Lapse of Canon's 2015 Expo - DIY Photography (http://www.diyphotography.net/120000-photos-were-shot-over-16-days-for-this-time-lapse-of-the-2015-canon-expo/)

Cheer

Castillo

Very nice, I don't have that kind of patience to put something like this together but it's always great to see a timelapse in action.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but my OCD compels me to perform the following math exercise:
120,000 photos on a shutter that is rated for only 200,000 shots means that you have burned-through over half your expected shutter life. Given that a new shutter costs $300...

Of course, it's all relative because an event of this magnitude requires spending $millions

I only mention this because, while this is a beautiful camera with a 20MP sensor, it is kinda over-kill for time-lapse, IMVHO

$300 is practically nothing when you consider all the time and money invested to pull off a project such as this. Also, they used more than one camera body (and 19 lenses), so the shutter count is spread out a bit. I do lots of time lapses that typically run in the 3,000-5,000 range for a single night, so I don't see anything excessive about their shutter count for covering such a long event, especially being multi-camera.
Shutter count was probably the least of their worries.

Mark

The more interesting thing to me is the choice of fast shutter vs. slow shutter. Slow is more difficult as one often needs an aggressive ND filter, but the look is so cool. Rather than looking like a series of stills, you see things flying around at high speed. To me, it's more dynamic.

But then again, for a Canon event, the idea of "stills" makes sense.

Not sure but would Magic Lantern "full frame silent picture" not work for the slower shutter speed photos?