Choosing time lapse cameras

[kryten22uk]

How do I know whether a camera is capable of doing time lapse photography, assuming I connect it to a laptop with suitable software? I’m looking to buy a 2nd hand camera (on ebay or other) to play around with some time lapse videos, nothing fancy or professional. How do I know what to look for? Is it a certain feature? Do all DSLR’s do it? Or is there a certain type or family of cameras which do this?

Ta

[_dobbo_]

Can't speak for other brands but Nikon use the term "Intervalometer" for this and it's all done in camera - you set the start time, the number of photos, and the interval, and it takes care of the rest - as long as your battery is up to the job.

I don't know which of the Nikon range has this feature but certainly my D200 has.

[Simpo Two]

Yep. It may also be that a laptop with suitable software could achieve the same result even if the camera per se doesn't do it. Not sure. Nikon's is called 'Capture Control Pro' but I've never used it.

[Dogsey]

Simpo Two said:

Yep. It may also be that a laptop with suitable software could achieve the same result even if the camera per se doesn't do it. Not sure. Nikon's is called 'Capture Control Pro' but I've never used it.

I've tried this with the D50 and it certainly works.

[RobDickinson]

Very few dSLR's do this, as said the technical term is intervalvometer , you can either buy a remote release or battery grip with this built in or use a laptop with software that drives the camera.

Soem nikons do now have one built in.

[Simpo Two]

So it seems you could either get a s/h D200 on eBay (about £450 body-only), or a camera without an intervalometer but a laptop and suitable software.

[crmcatee]

I've used the EOS Utility that comes with Canon cameras to time capture images. Works well and is a doddle to setup.

[Fordo]

I've used a Nikon D40 to do timelapse tethered to a laptop running nikon's camera control pro 2 software, and i've also used a D200, with its built in timelapse feature.

The D40 produced excellent results, but you could see the D200 was much sharper - may have just been the better lens I was using. the D40 had its stock 'buttery' lens on.

The d200 was much more user friendly - no laptop to worry about. But, on one odd occasion, it would stop.

I noticed watching the beeb's 'life' programme the other day, they were using a D200 for a timelapse in a forest.



What are you going to do timelapse on? Kit required will really depend on what you want to shoot, and for how long.



saw some amazing timelapse the other day- this guy makes it look like a work of art, well worth a watch:

http://www.timescapes.org/

[kryten22uk]

Simpo Two said:

So it seems you could either get a s/h D200 on eBay (about £450 body-only), or a camera without an intervalometer but a laptop and suitable software.

Thus us what confuses me. Are you sayin that with the right software, most cameras can be made to do this, but those with a intervalvometer can do it alone without a laptop?

Presumably in the former, the software tells the camera via USB to take a picture every so often.

[Fordo]

kryten22uk said:

Simpo Two said:

So it seems you could either get a s/h D200 on eBay (about £450 body-only), or a camera without an intervalometer but a laptop and suitable software.

Thus us what confuses me. Are you sayin that with the right software, most cameras can be made to do this, but those with a intervalvometer can do it alone without a laptop?

Presumably in the former, the software tells the camera via USB to take a picture every so often.

i can only speak for nikon, but most nikon dslr's can be controlled by camera control pro, and therefore can do time lapse- as you say, its just the software telling the camera to take a photo. There is a lag though, as the image is downloaded to the computer between shots. Not a big deal 99% of the time, but i wanted to get super smooth car light trails, and the 0.5 sec gap meant a small gap between light trails, which meant the final footage didnt have quite the flowing trails i was after.

But for all other things, the softwares pretty efficient. Nice thing about having a laptop handy is you can check focus, noise levels etc and you can get everything 100% perfect before commiting it to a nights lapse shot

[Simpo Two]

kryten22uk said:

Simpo Two said:

So it seems you could either get a s/h D200 on eBay (about £450 body-only), or a camera without an intervalometer but a laptop and suitable software.

Thus us what confuses me. Are you sayin that with the right software, most cameras can be made to do this, but those with a intervalvometer can do it alone without a laptop?

As I understand it, yes. Something has to tell the camera when to fire - either you, a built-in timer or an external controller. (For a project I did years ago it was four Olympus OM10s, four solenoids, two tailor-made circuit boards and two car batteries, and muggins went to change the film and batteries twice a week for three months!)

Fordo said:

There is a lag though, as the image is downloaded to the computer between shots. Not a big deal 99% of the time, but i wanted to get super smooth car light trails, and the 0.5 sec gap meant a small gap between light trails, which meant the final footage didnt have quite the flowing trails i was after.

Surely for super smooth light trails what you want is a long shutter opening, not an intervalometer? Multiple shots will always have a gap between them, even if very small

[beano500]

Simpo Two said:

Fordo said:

...i wanted to get super smooth car light trails, and the 0.5 sec gap meant a small gap between light trails, which meant the final footage didnt have quite the flowing trails i was after.

Surely for super smooth light trails what you want is a long shutter opening, ...

I think we want more frames (not a "jumpy" transition from frame to frame) here not longer shutter openings - you may be at cross porpoises?

[Simpo Two]

He's trying to make a video from stills?



I prefer aardvarks to porpoises, they are more even-tempered!

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 22 December 09:50

[kryten22uk]

Thanks all. That's given me enough to work on. I'll investigate now.

[Fordo]

Simpo Two said:

He's trying to make a video from stills?



I prefer aardvarks to porpoises, they are more even-tempered!

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 22 December 09:50

whats wrong with video form stills? thats what timelapse is!

i wanted animated light trials- i.e long exposure light trail shots of vehicles, but animated rather than just a still frame- so, in essence, lots of 2 frame exposure, one after the other. you can see the results in my showreel- www.peterford.co.uk . about 20 secs in theres a shot looking down at some taxis, with car light trails streaming past.

But, as you rightly point out, even the fastest dslr will have a gap between frames because of the mirror going up. - some of the best animated light trail shots ive seen are from a sony ex1 or ex 3 - its a xdcam hd video camera, but can do 'frame accumilation'- basically extremely long shutter speeds, for timelapse. As it has no mirror like a stills camera, once its exposed one frame, say 2 or 3 secs long, the next frame can start exposing immediately after the last- so there is no gap in a vehicles light trail. When sped up into timelapse, you get silky smooth animated light trails.

had to do a lot of research a while ago for a client who wanted lots of night time 'flowing traffic' shots

anyway, ive rambled on enough in someone else post!

[Simpo Two]

Fordo said:

whats wrong with video form stills? thats what timelapse is!

I thought you were talking about a still photograph showing light trails, sorry.

As for the showreel clip, forgive me for being dim today but what's the difference between what you describe and ordinary video footage speeded up in the edit suite?

[Tuna]

Some cameras can do timelapse by themselves, but there are obviously limitations when it comes to filling up memory cards and running out of battery. You can get an intervalometer, which effectively 'presses the button' for you, but there is still the issue of memory card space. Most cameras can be powered by a mains adaptor of some kind.

Alternatively, if you have a laptop to hand, you can look for a camera that supports remote capture. Nikon and Canon both do this, and you can get software that will take the photos and store it to your hard-drive. Some of the third party software is quite sophisticated and can do things like only taking photos during daylight hours, skipping weekends and so on. Depending on what you're taking photos of, this can be helpful.

If you want a cheap camera off ebay, then virtually all older canon compacts support remote capture. As I was looking into this I made this list:

http://knol.google.com/k/andy-lock-farm/older-cano...

Note that some canons will switch themselves on automatically when the USB lead is connected - which is very handy if you've mounted a camera in a remote location and cannot easily disturb it to switch it on or reset it. Note that if you're doing a long timelapse, your camera is reasonably likely to need resetting occasionally.

Here's one of my efforts, taken with a Canon S-40 bought for £40 on ebay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UFSjWmMHF0

[Fordo]

Simpo Two said:

Fordo said:

whats wrong with video form stills? thats what timelapse is!

I thought you were talking about a still photograph showing light trails, sorry.

As for the showreel clip, forgive me for being dim today but what's the difference between what you describe and ordinary video footage speeded up in the edit suite?

ordinary video footage speeded up wont look the same- for realistic motion blur, most pal video cameras have a shutter speed of 1/50 - that produces natural looking motion blur when things move quickly. Speed that up, and you just have cars moving fast, people moving fast, but no blur. A video of a car driving at night, at a shutter speed of 1/50 on a video camera, will just be a shot of a car driving. the tail lights will be defined. speed it up, you just see the tail lights move faster- but you wont get light trails.

you need each frame to be exposed for a longer period of time, to get the flowing light trails. Most video cameras dont really do long shutter speeds, hence why i did what i did with timelapse dslr's.

that same goes for timelapse involving people. Film normally on a video camera, and speed it up, and the people speed around like they're in benny hill. Use a fast dslr, doing 1 or 2 sec long exposures, or a video camera that can have a slower shutter, and the people in each frame will look blurred- speed that up, and you have a smoother, more flowing motion of people, instead of the benny hill look.

hope im making sense

Edited by Fordo on Tuesday 22 December 15:02

[Tuna]

Oh, and for a 'sort of timelapse', go out and rent The Corpse Bride - it was filmed using Canon DSLRs, specifically the EOS-1D Mark II.

[neilr]

Capture Control Pro, as Fordo pointed out is very good but limited by transfer rates. I had to do a similar thing a few months ago (but using a D2x) and was only able to shoot at 1 frame every 2 seconds in order to maintain a transfer rate that stayed constant over the length of time i needed to shoot. Any faster and the transfer rate slows down after a while and the desired effect doesn't happen.

I didn't need particularly flowing trails etc but when you've got a frame every 2 seconds played back at 24 frames, the action was far too fast. A nice effect but not what was needed. I ended up shooting on a Sony Z1 as well and thats the footage that was used.

I think Capture Control would be perfect for longer duration timelapse where one shot every 2 seconds or a shot a minute is used, but for light trails etc, video is the way to go. At least a the moment.