![]() That comes out to 50 frames per hour, or about one frame per minute of “real time”.įrankly, I try multiple “record” rates depending on the action and “real time” you need to compress. ![]() You need to compress 6 hours of “real time”. You have to calculate backwards from how long of a shot you need. Your run of the mill “point and shoot” digital snap shot camera can easily yield results equal to or better than the HDX900. To experiment with this process you don’t need an expensive camera. Finally, you can easily control the “playback speed” by varying the number of frames recorded.Īlso, if you’re doing night time timelapse, the shutter control functions are a still camera a much more flexible than your typical video camera, allowing of very interesting slow shutter speed imagery in no light or low light situations. Secondly, since you’re acquiring at a larger frame size you can “push in” to parts of the frame creating a zoom or pan… something that’s very tricky to do in a normal timelapse method. First and foremost, the quality of the image is SPECTACULAR. The advantages of using this method are many. ![]() My recommendation would be to use a DSLR (Digital SLR) like the Canon or Nikon and shoot a series of stills that can be turned into a timelapse sequence. I’ve done a fair amount of this over the years, and lately, I’ve been favoring “none of the above”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |