Anyone here familiar with making time lapse videos? I'm trying to figure out how to do it with my A570. I've got the intervalometer working and all that now I'm just figuring out how I'm going to make all the stills into a video. I've heard Sony Vegas is good for this kind of stuff but I've never used it and I'm having a hard time finding any tutorials on how to make a video from stills with it.
Anyone here familiar with making time lapse videos? I'm trying to figure out how to do it with my A570. I've got the intervalometer working and all that now I'm just figuring out how I'm going to make all the stills into a video. I've heard Sony Vegas is good for this kind of stuff but I've never used it and I'm having a hard time finding any tutorials on how to make a video from stills with it.
I did a time lapse with my 10d and a laptop with the EOS utility as the intervalmeter.
It took me a while to figure it out but the one problem was my 10d is usb 1.0 which meant really slow transfer speeds to the laptop (instead of recording to the flash card because mine was broken). As you can tell just make sure you have auto rotate on in the camera and in the EOS utility. If you have a rebel you can use a Ti-83-89 calculator as your intervalmeter. Just make sure you bring enough batteries because mine died after 2 hours of shooting into a 5 hour painting. Also you probably just want to throw the camera on the lowest JPG resolution because I doubt you will be doing an HD timelapse video.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
first real shoot with lighting
oh em geee I want to sleeeep
I have work at 6 am. I know the highlights are blown on the far right but I felt having the range from complete white, to pretty dark, to the reds and the greens looked nice. Model was my little sis.
First off you probably want to post your pictures smaller so they don't break h-scroll on a 1024x768 res. (ie no bigger than 625 high or 700 wide). I know its blown out on the right and that is unfortunate. You said this was your first real shooting with lighting? (I'm writing this with the assumption the blown out light from the right is the sun coming in a window and the light on her face is some sort of soft strobe) Next time turn the camera to aperture priority and then get the fstop where you want it...say f/3.5 then see what it says it will use as shutter speed. Make sure you use an fstop that is under 1/200th so you can sync with the flash. Say on AP you get f/3.5 and 1/150th of a second. So switch your camera to manual and put it at f/3.5 and 1/150th of a second and then bring up the the strobe you are using on the face starting at 1/16th power and moving it up till you have a nice even light that is about 1 stop under the sun light on the edge of her face.
I like that you used a shallow DOF for this but as someone else said make sure you are always focusing on the eye. When shooting human subjects the thing that really draws people in is the eyes. So make sure you get some light in the eyes either with a bounce card or bring them up in ps. Also in the first shot I like the pose, but I was wondering if you did some skin softening. It looks like you might have because you can see some skin texture right under the left eye but on the cheek below it there is no texture what so ever.
The second shot is quite awkward because of the angle. She looks odd having her legs right there and then that thing in the background to her left. You don't want to look up a model's nose. The third shot is still pretty awkward with that angle and the compression of her body from the lens you were using. It is a tiny bit better because her face is tilted downwards towards you, but I would still avoid that angle.
The fourth shot is decent but the background kind of bugs me and distracts me from the model. Also the braces are a little odd. The fifth shot you definitely need to focus on the eye that isn't covered up by her hair or use a wider DOF. Also you might want to tell her to keep her lips closed to hide the braces. Usually when I shoot I asked models to do a variety of things expression wise. I will ask them to be serious, to be happy/silly and smile with and without teeth. Some people will look better with one type of expression and not the other so its good to ask the model to try all of them and see which ones they are comfortable with and have them keep doing that one.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I took 600+ pictures this weekend and am still editing them to hopefully come out with a couple good ones, but this little guy was too cute not to share.
Wow, a lot of pages to catch up and way too many to comment on so I'll just thank a few people and vent a little bluntly about a pet peeve of mine.
@Jake, CC, n0, Pope, pinch, Fuzz, UL and a few others: Thank you for posting images small enough that I can actually see the whole image without scrolling down.
I'm going to sound like a dick here but whatever. To everyone else: If I'm having to scroll down to view your whole vertical image on a 20" 1680x1050 monitor, you're doing it wrong. I don't know if you feel you need to make the image that big to grab someone's attention or what but it's just annoying and I personally just scroll past them (which is also made easier by the fact that quite frankly most of the images at this size don't really warrant much of a look).
The people I thanked above manage to post fantastic images, which get noticed and at a smaller size. Also, most of them have it so I can click on their image if I actually WANT to see the image at a larger size. [.url="image url"][.img="image"][./url] (without the periods) bam. done. Medium image size on flickr is usually sufficient!
I don't have an image to contribute as I've been sick for the past two weeks and besides work have not really left the house.
EDIT: @Bomb and CC: Babies are cute! Well except for when they clock you in the nuts.. Which could explain my crappy mood above ^
Do you mean I should crop out more of the hand or should I have told her to hold the frog differently?
The former. Either zoom in further on the frog if you can. If you can't then just crop it. The hand is taking up a massive portion of the frame considering it isn't the subject.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Anyone here familiar with making time lapse videos? I'm trying to figure out how to do it with my A570. I've got the intervalometer working and all that now I'm just figuring out how I'm going to make all the stills into a video. I've heard Sony Vegas is good for this kind of stuff but I've never used it and I'm having a hard time finding any tutorials on how to make a video from stills with it.
I did a time lapse with my 10d and a laptop with the EOS utility as the intervalmeter.
It took me a while to figure it out but the one problem was my 10d is usb 1.0 which meant really slow transfer speeds to the laptop (instead of recording to the flash card because mine was broken). As you can tell just make sure you have auto rotate on in the camera and in the EOS utility. If you have a rebel you can use a Ti-83-89 calculator as your intervalmeter. Just make sure you bring enough batteries because mine died after 2 hours of shooting into a 5 hour painting. Also you probably just want to throw the camera on the lowest JPG resolution because I doubt you will be doing an HD timelapse video.
What did you use to compile the frames into a video?
So just out of curiosity, does anyone know anything about business insurance?
I usually go to B&H so I can cover any equipment I buy for accidental damage, but someone suggested that I simply use an extended warranty + business insurance, since we already have a policy at work. However, I'm not sure how this will work, and what the conditions usually are. I tend to be somewhat of a klutz, so accident protection is kind of important.
What did you use to compile the frames into a video?
Windows Movie Maker.
It can also be easily done with Quicktime Pro.
I'll try those. I was using Vegas but it seems like kind of overkill for my first try and the HD files were xbox hueg which doesn't jive with the bootcamped XP partition on my ladie's imac.
Went to a kick ass Mono concert, and had a jolly good time, but I am getting tired of taking pictures in a dark cave. there isnt much to be done in such environment, as pictures look too clinical for me when taken with strobes. So I brought an Fuji instax camera with me for some added fun. I need to re-evaluate the way I approach concert photography.
Here are some shots:
I dont know why I dig this weirdly composed frame, but I do.
And some badly digitized instax. Will have to get rid of that yellow cast I got from photographing the pictures. but in general, I really love their feel.
Damn bombs... that first one is shaaaarp! Love it, kinda bouncing back and forth between wondering if there's too much up top, but I really think it adds some depth to the pic.
Just some recent ones that I found interesting. Again, not bothered about editing them or anything. Hope they're not too big for some people - they're at a reasonable resolution, I think.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
B'aw, thanks! I have yet to actually print any of my stuff, though.
Prosp: here is a horizontal almost the same. Either one could work, I suppose. I have a lot of different crops/orientations of most of these so if you think anything a bit different might work then let me know and I will try it out!
Here are a few more. Still a lot to go. Finding the colours you remember can take a while. Also, I am 100% going to pick up the 2x doubler. I talked with some people about it and they say that the 70-200 2.8 with the doubler is sharper than the 400 4. Pretty awesome.
Bombs - your pictures are all beautifully crisp, nicely saturated without looking "fakey," and interesting. Excellent stuff. I prefer the vertical crop of the ram, it has a lot more context. the horizontal shot is more intimate, but I see the foothills of the mountains and it makes me want to look up and see them.
Thanks for the kind words pope. I only push stuff as far as what I can do in Lightroom.
I was going for a "LOOK AT HOW MUCH NOTHING THERE IS GOD THIS IS AWFUL" in the farm shot. Also there was a change in the grass so that's as low as I could go that wide. BUT, how about a horizontal crop? I'd like to keep a normal 4x6 ratio but I'm learning that it's not always best.
Edit: here's a square crop with the foreground grass:
On the 2nd photo there you could crop a little off the top and still have the vast nothingness that you wanted. The original is definitely better than the other versions of it you just posted.
The one with the truck is too still for my tastes I think it would greatly benefit from having a tripod and a longer exposure so the truck is blurred.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Looking back at that one CC, I 100% agree. It's slightly blurred but you can only see it when you've got the full size.
I'll have bigger versions of everything once I do a flickr dump, Aldo! I'm going through and doing adjustments now. I'll turn my flickr sig back on when they're up.
And now, some god damn hoo doos (and a train bridge, that is actually crooked like that).
I think I require some 1024x768 resolutions of those pictures, Bomb.
To use as a desktop on your 15" CRT, gramps? ;-)
Mostly just not in a position to spend money on useless things, but yeah.
t Bombs: cheers.
--
Oh, while we're here: I was on a fieldtrip and most of my photos failed (curse ye Point-n-shoot camera!) One of the very that has a proper sky and (in my opinion) manages to make a point is this one:
The point it is supposed to make is the new life that is starting up in the Ruhr area: old factories are rebuilt to museums, neighbourhood centers and exhibition areas.
also: yes, this still suffers from the fact that it is a simple camera with 7.2megapixels.
Even a handheld camera can get good results! It's just harder to coax them into doing what you want as you get closer to the bottom end of the spectrum.
iglidante: watch your highlights. The pedals of the flowers are being blown out. The house is nice but you could definitely push the values and pull some colour out of the wood. What are you shooting with and using for processing?
Usagi: thanks! I like that one too, still after seeing the other crops. I likes me my deep desaturated blue skies.
Looking back at that one CC, I 100% agree. It's slightly blurred but you can only see it when you've got the full size.
I'll have bigger versions of everything once I do a flickr dump, Aldo! I'm going through and doing adjustments now. I'll turn my flickr sig back on when they're up.
And now, some god damn hoo doos (and a train bridge, that is actually crooked like that).
I like this one but it seems oddly HDRed or selective curves/levels. The middle and right portion of left pillar is more saturated and a little more yellow than the left part of the pillar. The top part of the pillar almost looks like a cartoon or a painting and it just throws the picture off.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Even a handheld camera can get good results! It's just harder to coax them into doing what you want as you get closer to the bottom end of the spectrum.
iglidante: watch your highlights. The pedals of the flowers are being blown out. The house is nice but you could definitely push the values and pull some colour out of the wood. What are you shooting with and using for processing?
Usagi: thanks! I like that one too, still after seeing the other crops. I likes me my deep desaturated blue skies.
Both shot with a little Canon point and shoot from work - not even my own camera. They stuck stickers all over the body to identify it as office property, so I can't even find the model number. Basic Photoshop for processing - mostly just to bump the saturation a tad, because this camera tends to always produce a washed-out image.
The flower was in direct sunlight, so it did clip a bit. As for the wood, actually, it's rather old and doesn't really have any color in person either - it's gray-white.
I haven't shot anything for fun in quite a while, so I did these on a whim while I was wandering around the coast last Saturday (I had to do a shoreline cleanup as part of my job, so I figured I'd spend a bit of time taking some photos to redeem my afternoon).
Looking back at that one CC, I 100% agree. It's slightly blurred but you can only see it when you've got the full size.
I'll have bigger versions of everything once I do a flickr dump, Aldo! I'm going through and doing adjustments now. I'll turn my flickr sig back on when they're up.
And now, some god damn hoo doos (and a train bridge, that is actually crooked like that).
I like this one but it seems oddly HDRed or selective curves/levels. The middle and right portion of left pillar is more saturated and a little more yellow than the left part of the pillar. The top part of the pillar almost looks like a cartoon or a painting and it just throws the picture off.
Looking back at that one CC, I 100% agree. It's slightly blurred but you can only see it when you've got the full size.
I'll have bigger versions of everything once I do a flickr dump, Aldo! I'm going through and doing adjustments now. I'll turn my flickr sig back on when they're up.
And now, some god damn hoo doos (and a train bridge, that is actually crooked like that).
I like this one but it seems oddly HDRed or selective curves/levels. The middle and right portion of left pillar is more saturated and a little more yellow than the left part of the pillar. The top part of the pillar almost looks like a cartoon or a painting and it just throws the picture off.
Posts
My Portfolio Site
I did a time lapse with my 10d and a laptop with the EOS utility as the intervalmeter.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeff25rs/3850243814/
It took me a while to figure it out but the one problem was my 10d is usb 1.0 which meant really slow transfer speeds to the laptop (instead of recording to the flash card because mine was broken). As you can tell just make sure you have auto rotate on in the camera and in the EOS utility. If you have a rebel you can use a Ti-83-89 calculator as your intervalmeter. Just make sure you bring enough batteries because mine died after 2 hours of shooting into a 5 hour painting. Also you probably just want to throw the camera on the lowest JPG resolution because I doubt you will be doing an HD timelapse video.
First off you probably want to post your pictures smaller so they don't break h-scroll on a 1024x768 res. (ie no bigger than 625 high or 700 wide). I know its blown out on the right and that is unfortunate. You said this was your first real shooting with lighting? (I'm writing this with the assumption the blown out light from the right is the sun coming in a window and the light on her face is some sort of soft strobe) Next time turn the camera to aperture priority and then get the fstop where you want it...say f/3.5 then see what it says it will use as shutter speed. Make sure you use an fstop that is under 1/200th so you can sync with the flash. Say on AP you get f/3.5 and 1/150th of a second. So switch your camera to manual and put it at f/3.5 and 1/150th of a second and then bring up the the strobe you are using on the face starting at 1/16th power and moving it up till you have a nice even light that is about 1 stop under the sun light on the edge of her face.
I like that you used a shallow DOF for this but as someone else said make sure you are always focusing on the eye. When shooting human subjects the thing that really draws people in is the eyes. So make sure you get some light in the eyes either with a bounce card or bring them up in ps. Also in the first shot I like the pose, but I was wondering if you did some skin softening. It looks like you might have because you can see some skin texture right under the left eye but on the cheek below it there is no texture what so ever.
The second shot is quite awkward because of the angle. She looks odd having her legs right there and then that thing in the background to her left. You don't want to look up a model's nose. The third shot is still pretty awkward with that angle and the compression of her body from the lens you were using. It is a tiny bit better because her face is tilted downwards towards you, but I would still avoid that angle.
The fourth shot is decent but the background kind of bugs me and distracts me from the model. Also the braces are a little odd. The fifth shot you definitely need to focus on the eye that isn't covered up by her hair or use a wider DOF. Also you might want to tell her to keep her lips closed to hide the braces. Usually when I shoot I asked models to do a variety of things expression wise. I will ask them to be serious, to be happy/silly and smile with and without teeth. Some people will look better with one type of expression and not the other so its good to ask the model to try all of them and see which ones they are comfortable with and have them keep doing that one.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
@Jake, CC, n0, Pope, pinch, Fuzz, UL and a few others: Thank you for posting images small enough that I can actually see the whole image without scrolling down.
I'm going to sound like a dick here but whatever. To everyone else: If I'm having to scroll down to view your whole vertical image on a 20" 1680x1050 monitor, you're doing it wrong. I don't know if you feel you need to make the image that big to grab someone's attention or what but it's just annoying and I personally just scroll past them (which is also made easier by the fact that quite frankly most of the images at this size don't really warrant much of a look).
The people I thanked above manage to post fantastic images, which get noticed and at a smaller size. Also, most of them have it so I can click on their image if I actually WANT to see the image at a larger size. [.url="image url"][.img="image"][./url] (without the periods) bam. done. Medium image size on flickr is usually sufficient!
I don't have an image to contribute as I've been sick for the past two weeks and besides work have not really left the house.
EDIT: @Bomb and CC: Babies are cute! Well except for when they clock you in the nuts.. Which could explain my crappy mood above ^
Less hand, more frog.
The former. Either zoom in further on the frog if you can. If you can't then just crop it. The hand is taking up a massive portion of the frame considering it isn't the subject.
What did you use to compile the frames into a video?
I usually go to B&H so I can cover any equipment I buy for accidental damage, but someone suggested that I simply use an extended warranty + business insurance, since we already have a policy at work. However, I'm not sure how this will work, and what the conditions usually are. I tend to be somewhat of a klutz, so accident protection is kind of important.
Thoughts?
Windows Movie Maker.
It can also be easily done with Quicktime Pro.
I'll try those. I was using Vegas but it seems like kind of overkill for my first try and the HD files were xbox hueg which doesn't jive with the bootcamped XP partition on my ladie's imac.
Here are some shots:
I dont know why I dig this weirdly composed frame, but I do.
And some badly digitized instax. Will have to get rid of that yellow cast I got from photographing the pictures. but in general, I really love their feel.
My Portfolio Site
Just some recent ones that I found interesting. Again, not bothered about editing them or anything. Hope they're not too big for some people - they're at a reasonable resolution, I think.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Prosp: here is a horizontal almost the same. Either one could work, I suppose. I have a lot of different crops/orientations of most of these so if you think anything a bit different might work then let me know and I will try it out!
Here are a few more. Still a lot to go. Finding the colours you remember can take a while. Also, I am 100% going to pick up the 2x doubler. I talked with some people about it and they say that the 70-200 2.8 with the doubler is sharper than the 400 4. Pretty awesome.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I was going for a "LOOK AT HOW MUCH NOTHING THERE IS GOD THIS IS AWFUL" in the farm shot. Also there was a change in the grass so that's as low as I could go that wide. BUT, how about a horizontal crop? I'd like to keep a normal 4x6 ratio but I'm learning that it's not always best.
Edit: here's a square crop with the foreground grass:
Like, Like, Do Not like.
On the 2nd photo there you could crop a little off the top and still have the vast nothingness that you wanted. The original is definitely better than the other versions of it you just posted.
The one with the truck is too still for my tastes I think it would greatly benefit from having a tripod and a longer exposure so the truck is blurred.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
I'll have bigger versions of everything once I do a flickr dump, Aldo! I'm going through and doing adjustments now. I'll turn my flickr sig back on when they're up.
And now, some god damn hoo doos (and a train bridge, that is actually crooked like that).
the square crop is nice, but I really like the empty space in this
the graduated blue sharp up against the field is just perfect
New England asters in granite.
Detail of the Rockefeller Building .
Mostly just not in a position to spend money on useless things, but yeah.
t Bombs: cheers.
--
Oh, while we're here: I was on a fieldtrip and most of my photos failed (curse ye Point-n-shoot camera!) One of the very that has a proper sky and (in my opinion) manages to make a point is this one:
The point it is supposed to make is the new life that is starting up in the Ruhr area: old factories are rebuilt to museums, neighbourhood centers and exhibition areas.
also: yes, this still suffers from the fact that it is a simple camera with 7.2megapixels.
iglidante: watch your highlights. The pedals of the flowers are being blown out. The house is nice but you could definitely push the values and pull some colour out of the wood. What are you shooting with and using for processing?
Usagi: thanks! I like that one too, still after seeing the other crops. I likes me my deep desaturated blue skies.
I like this one but it seems oddly HDRed or selective curves/levels. The middle and right portion of left pillar is more saturated and a little more yellow than the left part of the pillar. The top part of the pillar almost looks like a cartoon or a painting and it just throws the picture off.
Both shot with a little Canon point and shoot from work - not even my own camera. They stuck stickers all over the body to identify it as office property, so I can't even find the model number. Basic Photoshop for processing - mostly just to bump the saturation a tad, because this camera tends to always produce a washed-out image.
The flower was in direct sunlight, so it did clip a bit. As for the wood, actually, it's rather old and doesn't really have any color in person either - it's gray-white.
I haven't shot anything for fun in quite a while, so I did these on a whim while I was wandering around the coast last Saturday (I had to do a shoreline cleanup as part of my job, so I figured I'd spend a bit of time taking some photos to redeem my afternoon).
I've had some other shots that came out looking really faux HDR, and the biggest cause of that is using fill light. This one is a good example: http://iphotogood.com/photos/minnekhada/minnekhada06.jpg
The only selective adjustments I did was a touch of contrast on the hoo doos, but nothing colour wise.
Here's the original though: http://iseenothing.com/photos/canada/badlands01_orig.jpg. I love the 5D's low noise. I can fill light and it doesn't look like ass!
I don't mind that first one so much...also your original link is not working 404 and stuff.