Extreme time lapse at DVinfo.net

Shawn Legg · February 8th, 2011, 11:57 PM

I just got asked to shoot the set up of an event ( a home and garden show - with model homes, full garden setups etc.) . The setup will take approximately 2 weeks, which they want condensed into roughly 30 seconds. I am also shooting the event but that is a different project. They just want a quick timelapse showing the building from empty to finished. I was thinking of 1 sec. every 5 minutes that would use roughly 30 minutes of tape for the two weeks if my math is correct. It can look jerky that isnt a problem but do you think that is too much or too little amount of footage to get the idea of what is going on during the 2 weeks? Especially since I have to speed it up tonnes to get it to 30 seconds. Is these even really plausible? I am starting to think even 1 sec per 10 minutes is better but would I still be able to see the progression of what is happening? Any one have experience doing such an extreme time lapse video?

Also would it even be a good idea to leave my Sony FX1000 on for 2 weeks straight? It will be a relatively cool room with the camera obviously hooked up to a power supply.

Leslie Wand · February 9th, 2011, 12:35 AM

use a dslr and intervalometer.

Shawn Legg · February 12th, 2011, 12:45 AM

Thanks Leslie, but I don't want to buy a bunch of new stuff I was just wondering about the stuff I asked about.

Leslie Wand · February 12th, 2011, 12:59 AM

well i think you'll find the z5 / fx1000 a bit old hat nowadays. there's many people out there still using them (at least the z5 afaik), but i think we've all pretty much got a handle on them by now....

i still think my suggestion more appropriate for the job - a cheap $100 digital camera (which probably has time lapse built in) will give much better (higher resolution) pics than any video camera.....

and no big deal if it gets knocked off (in any sense of the word ;-))

Shawn Legg · February 12th, 2011, 01:27 AM

True about the dslr thingy I guess, I thought only expensive ones had the timelapse function. Also I going to have the camera high up above and kind of far away. My Fx1000 does very well in lowlight, but I would assume a camera would need a flash and it won't throw that far.

Leslie Wand · February 12th, 2011, 03:36 AM

i would also presume that a still camera would have better sensitivity than a video camera.....

you say flash.... surely they wont be setting up in the dark?

Brian McKenna · February 12th, 2011, 07:51 AM

firstly, make sure the camera is set to progressive 30p.

i think the trick to doing timelapse with sony video cameras is to just let it record for 1 second or half a second per interval...
but then in post, you're going to want to speed the footage up so that each interval is only one or 2 frames long. that will look much smoother than little snippets of one second.
i'd also recommend just using the shortest interval possible/....

but yeah, you could just buy some semi-disposable still-camera

Shawn Legg · February 14th, 2011, 01:40 PM

Thanks, I was too afraid to leave my fx1000 alone that long, So I borrowed a Gopro which seems to do the trick, although I would rather have an option for 1 shot every 5 minutes instead every 60 seconds.

February 8th, 2011, 11:57 PM	#1
Shawn Legg Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Hamilton, ONTARIO Posts: 29	Extreme time lapse I just got asked to shoot the set up of an event ( a home and garden show - with model homes, full garden setups etc.) . The setup will take approximately 2 weeks, which they want condensed into roughly 30 seconds. I am also shooting the event but that is a different project. They just want a quick timelapse showing the building from empty to finished. I was thinking of 1 sec. every 5 minutes that would use roughly 30 minutes of tape for the two weeks if my math is correct. It can look jerky that isnt a problem but do you think that is too much or too little amount of footage to get the idea of what is going on during the 2 weeks? Especially since I have to speed it up tonnes to get it to 30 seconds. Is these even really plausible? I am starting to think even 1 sec per 10 minutes is better but would I still be able to see the progression of what is happening? Any one have experience doing such an extreme time lapse video? Also would it even be a good idea to leave my Sony FX1000 on for 2 weeks straight? It will be a relatively cool room with the camera obviously hooked up to a power supply.

February 9th, 2011, 12:35 AM	#2
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	use a dslr and intervalometer. __________________ www.lesliewand.com.au

February 12th, 2011, 12:59 AM	#4
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	well i think you'll find the z5 / fx1000 a bit old hat nowadays. there's many people out there still using them (at least the z5 afaik), but i think we've all pretty much got a handle on them by now.... i still think my suggestion more appropriate for the job - a cheap $100 digital camera (which probably has time lapse built in) will give much better (higher resolution) pics than any video camera..... and no big deal if it gets knocked off (in any sense of the word ;-)) __________________ www.lesliewand.com.au

February 12th, 2011, 03:36 AM	#6
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	i would also presume that a still camera would have better sensitivity than a video camera..... you say flash.... surely they wont be setting up in the dark? __________________ www.lesliewand.com.au

February 12th, 2011, 12:45 AM	#3
Shawn Legg Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Hamilton, ONTARIO Posts: 29	Thanks Leslie, but I don't want to buy a bunch of new stuff I was just wondering about the stuff I asked about.

February 12th, 2011, 01:27 AM	#5
Shawn Legg Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Hamilton, ONTARIO Posts: 29	True about the dslr thingy I guess, I thought only expensive ones had the timelapse function. Also I going to have the camera high up above and kind of far away. My Fx1000 does very well in lowlight, but I would assume a camera would need a flash and it won't throw that far.

February 12th, 2011, 07:51 AM	#7
Brian McKenna Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: canada Posts: 57	firstly, make sure the camera is set to progressive 30p. i think the trick to doing timelapse with sony video cameras is to just let it record for 1 second or half a second per interval... but then in post, you're going to want to speed the footage up so that each interval is only one or 2 frames long. that will look much smoother than little snippets of one second. i'd also recommend just using the shortest interval possible/.... but yeah, you could just buy some semi-disposable still-camera

February 14th, 2011, 01:40 PM	#8
Shawn Legg Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Hamilton, ONTARIO Posts: 29	Thanks, I was too afraid to leave my fx1000 alone that long, So I borrowed a Gopro which seems to do the trick, although I would rather have an option for 1 shot every 5 minutes instead every 60 seconds.