First Daytime Time Lapse Attempt

[astrostu]

Well that took a long time.

This is a sequence of 3133 photographs, taken from 11:41AM to 9:02PM. One shot every 10 seconds until the last 49 minutes, when it was 1 shot every 20 seconds. Aperture started at f/5.6, then I later went to f/3.2. Shutter speed from 1/800-sec to 15 sec. ISO from 100 to 400. With +2 EV processing on the last set, the illumination changed by a factor of 588,000 (if I did my math right?). These were processed so the color balance was all the same, and I think I need to change that in the future 'cause the clouds at the end are too yellow. The ~2 seconds of black-out are when I moved the camera, stupidly. Took about a day to process everything.

The video is at 24fps, meaning that for most of it, 1 second video = 4 minutes real-time. There are some obvious places for improvement, such as better transition between segments with different exposure values (most obvious just after sunset). And color towards the end. And a wider lens.

Otherwise, critiques? Thoughts? Any particular frame you want to see alone?

 

[H4X1MA]

I've only done a few of these, none which I consider very good, so don't take much of this to heart.

I would find a better foreground and concentrate less on the sky. With a partly cloudy day I seem to find more interest in what the shadows are doing than what the clouds are doing.

What are the rules with time lapse and adjusting settings? When I did one of my sunsets, I accidentally left the camera in aperture mode which ended up make everything look the same. Night became day since i was using a 1.8. Your sunset cam out pretty good using the settings that you did, imo. The storm at the end was a win.

 

[CherylL]

You had a beautiful setting for timelapse. We lived in Colorado many years ago & your timelapse brings back memories. I've only just started doing these and used setting of about f/9, 1 sec shutter speed, every 3 seconds with a ND400 filter. The filter said 9 stops, but I am not sure if that is the actual result. Have you been to Timescapes.org site? Lots of tips there.

 

[afoto]

wow! that ending was spectacular!!!! I almost didn't make it to the end though, I'd maybe take out the first minute of the video, as it's a lot of the same.
awesome job

 

[astrostu]

Thanks all. I personally disagree with H4X1MA, unless I had an active foreground (like a lake setting) and sped it up by a factor of several. Then you would see the shadows move. As-is, they move too slowly at 4 min = 1 sec to see anything interesting. And personally, I think the clouds are the most interesting part here. Again, unless the focus were on more a scenery thing.

CheryIL - Yes, I've been there a few times and it was last week that I finally decided to start trying. That's where I read the suggestion of a 10-sec cadence for slow-moving clouds.

afoto - Yeah, I think it does start to get a tad boring until about 1:45. Maybe cut out every-other frame or go at 48fps next time. Or just leave out the first minute, though after all that work you kinda want to show everything.

 

[fokker]

Personally I think it could be speeded up a bit, or at least the first pasrt cut down. The end was awesome, except for the blackout as you mentioned - could you not just cut that part out?

 

[Tanman11]

did you have to shorten each picture in your editor or is there a thing that just chooses how long you want the video to be and it puts them all in the right shortness? That probably made no sense.

 

[astrostu]

did you have to shorten each picture in your editor or is there a thing that just chooses how long you want the video to be and it puts them all in the right shortness? That probably made no sense.

I set the frame rate and I had a certain number of frames. So, setting it at 24 fps would give me twice the video length as 48 fps, as an example.