|
|
Post by Saknika on Oct 7, 2009 22:16:22 GMT -5
Sounds pretty interesting Firequall. Can't wait to see some of the results.  |
|
firequall
Weekend Photographer
Canon shooter
Posts: 64
|
Post by firequall on Oct 8, 2009 0:38:41 GMT -5
This was my first attempt: www.vimeo.com/6696390I had my 30D tethered to my laptop, shooting at five second intervals via EOS Utility at f/1.8. The focus issue was entirely my fault but the general effect isn't that bad. The biggest downside is that the EOS Utility only allows a minimum of five second intervals, which by my standards looks too choppy. My second attempt was briefly shot last night: www.vimeo.com/6939653I loaded CHDK (http://chdk.wikia.com) onto my family's A630 and ran a timelapse script I found, shooting at three second intervals. I ran into more focusing issues but that was because the camera defaults to auto focus when the screen is closed, even after I had manually set it. While I'm able to get faster intervals, the camera is limited in terms of aperture and because I had to zoom in, it was shot at f/4.1. |
|
|
|
Post by enigmarose on Oct 8, 2009 9:26:11 GMT -5
That was realy cool, nice work Fire.
Did the windshield have any play in the auto focus issue? I would be tempted to try again with the camera outside the car or perhaps straped to the roof if you have a sunroof. Traffic flow permitting; I wander if you could have altered the speed of the car (Slower) to capture the same amount of frames in a given area compensating for the minimum 5 second intervals.
The technical aspect must have been realy challenging, having to compensate with the slow shutter speed because of the darkness so as not to get to much motion blur etc; and I bet that is just one aspect of the shoot.
I think you have done an amazing job with just two attempts, and I think both are great.
|
|
|
|
Post by comicIDIOT on Oct 9, 2009 16:23:53 GMT -5
Interesting effect Fire, I feel really confined though  Here's my attempt at a night timelapse on my way home from class. 217 Photos over 18.08 Minutes ISO1600, 2SEC, f/16 at 5SEC Intervals. I tried going lower than five seconds but my camera takes equally as long to process a photo as it does to take and it takes about a second to send to my computer. In the end five seconds works really well for me. I shot Small JPEG's (2.5MP's) because I didn't need RAW or full size and I could still get 1080i/p out of 2.5MP's  I worked all day yesterday calibrating everything but never thought of a way to fasten my camera aside from a tripod with it's legs on the seat and floor, I seatbuckled it in at last minute. Haha. Enjoy! The f/16 was my fault. I could have lowered my ISO by a bit had I remembered. My aperture is completely manual and since I couldn't change it - or view it - on the remote software I forgot to make sure it was at it's fastest value of 3.5. I plan to reshoot again from a different vantage point on Monday coming home from Astronomy again |
|
firequall
Weekend Photographer
Canon shooter
Posts: 64
|
Post by firequall on Oct 11, 2009 23:24:45 GMT -5
Did the windshield have any play in the auto focus issue? I would be tempted to try again with the camera outside the car or perhaps straped to the roof if you have a sunroof. Traffic flow permitting; I wander if you could have altered the speed of the car (Slower) to capture the same amount of frames in a given area compensating for the minimum 5 second intervals. Focus issues were just general inability in virtually no light. With nothing nearby to focus on, the camera likely defaults to an "infinity" focus. As for slowing down, that's generally an impossibility and unwise. Most roads here are rated between 60km/h to 80km/h, with the (only) major highway being 100km/h. The technical aspect must have been realy challenging, having to compensate with the slow shutter speed because of the darkness so as not to get to much motion blur etc; and I bet that is just one aspect of the shoot. The blur is actually the exact look I'm going for. The idea is more an experimentation on the utilizing blur at night to give a great sense of motion rather than trying to achieve the typical "crisp and sharp" shot. Interesting effect Fire, I feel really confined though [/url]The widest lense I have right now is a 50mm and I'm not sure what the equivalent for the A630 is. The f/16 was my fault. I could have lowered my ISO by a bit had I remembered. I've found that ISO doesn't become much of an issue with video until you start moving into dedicated video hardware. At such relatively small resolutions and unique noise patterns, most of it blends into eachother and is virtually non-existent. |
|
|
|
Post by ŋєт™ on Oct 15, 2009 9:15:23 GMT -5
I want to try my hand at some HDR photography.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saknika on Oct 15, 2009 9:27:36 GMT -5
I want to try my hand at some HDR photography. Somehow, I see you really getting into this and being good at it, too. |
|
|
|
Post by ŋєт™ on Oct 15, 2009 9:35:20 GMT -5
I've always seen HDR stuff and I've been amazed. I just recently took it upon myself to research how it's done. Next time I'm off and it's nice outside I'm going to go find a good place to try it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saknika on Oct 15, 2009 10:30:52 GMT -5
I wish you the best of luck in being successful Net. |
|
|
|
Post by danielazarc on Oct 22, 2009 15:28:37 GMT -5
I'd also like to experiment with water. I'm not sure my camera is good enough to capture water drops, because it's really difficult to get my camera to shoot at the moment I want it to, it usually has a second or two delay. If I could figure out how to do that I would. Otherwise I might just try some new shots of water in general, I've been wanting to do that...
|
|
