How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

Is this a very quick timelapse photography video that they stitched together? By the jerky motion it seems that way, but I'm just curious

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

Most definitely timelapse.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

Any idea what setting this would have been on? 1 shot per second?

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

More likely, it's stop-motion animation, where the interval can be controlled manually, vs. at pre-programmed intervals. My Panasonic G6 has this functionality, as I believe the GH series does too.
The additional benefit over timelapse is that you have an overlay of the previous frame, which allows for precise registration or motion effects when the camera needs to be moved.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

The easiest way to do this is to shoot the project at normal speed, then speed it up to your liking in post. For jitter or stutter, add a stop motion filter in post.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

I've done stuff like this before, and the easiest way (for me, at least) was to set up a DSLR on manual and run it at its max continuous shoot speed (around 5 fps on the cam I had at the time) and just let it rip while your talent works at normal speed.

Then composite in your editor as a timelapse, tweak according to your needs, and there you go.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

[QUOTE=Bryan Cantwell;1889303]I've done stuff like this before, and the easiest way (for me, at least) was to set up a DSLR on manual and run it at its max continuous shoot speed (around 5 fps on the cam I had at the time) and just let it rip while your talent works at normal speed.

The video was 100 seconds long, so thats 3000 frames
Figure it took the lady 1 hour in real-time, so 5fps for 3600 seconds is 18000 frames.
Seems to me 1 FPS would be adequate

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

I'm confused? Isn't this just a case of speeding up the clip - in Premiere, between 500 and 900% produces something very similar - a quick experiment with my phone, my name and a pencil shows 800% as subjectively best on a quick trial?

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

IMHO this sort of thing is best shot as video, not stills.

The life of a shutter on a dSLR is measured in the upper tens of thousands of clicks, or low hundreds of thousands, so, 18,000 frames is a significant chunk of the life of the shutter. (they can be replaced)

The Magic Lantern firmware hack on a compatible Canon dSLR gives you slow FPS settings for video - it's great, I've used it for timelapse/fastmo.

Or, on a conventional camcorder, as Paul suggested above, just speed up in your NLE. In some NLEs you'll have to run intermediate renders through the process a few times, depending.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

I don't know the specific technique used, but have a look at this freeware from Microsoft Research: Microsoft Hyperlapse - Microsoft Research
This appears to be a beta version. (also have a look at their image composition software, also freeware, to make stop-motion multiple image panoramas and such from stills or video. Interesting.)


Read the privacy statement.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

The projects I've done in this style were either :15 or :30 seconds, not even close to 18k frames. The scale was a bit smaller, so that method worked.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

For me, my first timelapse project consisted of 2 hours of real time shot at one frame per second. Ya' gotta' do the math...

It was only later that I realized that I'd just put 7200 clicks on my then-brand-new Canon 60D, a camera with an expected shutter life of 100,000 clicks as tested by Canon. It was then that I realized that simple timelapse projects could eat a shutter, fast! Nearly 10% of my shutter life in one day's project wasn't going to work.

So, I began using the slow-frame-rate video option that Magic Lantern provides. It's great for timelapses where you'll later display the full frame as shot at 1080p.

If you want to have the ability to do HD "ken burns" moves on your timelapse in post, you have to shoot stills and accept the wear on your shutter. But those projects are few for me, and I'm now much more careful about using a timelapse calculator to make sure that I'm only shooting the number of stills I'll actually use.

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

So if they did this shooting video at 1fps, how did they do the globe spinning at :23? Did they just cut out the parts of the video that have them getting the new picture of the earth in place?

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

Brock,

In all probability this was shot as normal video clips in post the speed was adjusted for each separately to give the animation effect rightly, as you can imagine not all people can draw at similar speed its surely done in post.
In such a scenario its possible to even insert a frame or picture and blend it into the mix.

You can surely give it a try, make few small 1 minute videos of any activity and then put them on the time line and manually adjust their speed , you may be amazed at what it can do

vishal

Re: How did they do this? Timelapse?
 

Perhaps I didn't go into enough detail in my earlier post....this is called Hyperlapse. The free Microsoft software I referenced in my previous post is designed to do exactly this process from standard rate video. And of course, you can cut in stills, or normal rate clips, or whatever you want.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/...fault.html#pro