
videobear
Veteran

Aug 23, 2005, 3:26 PM
Post #10 of 22
(3267 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [richardhiggs] Time-lapse video gear
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
be more specific about the challenges (in layman's terms if possible). My naive assumption is that if I just turn on the videocam for 30 minutes at 24fps I will have assembled a like number of frames (43,200) in the camera's memory. Will it be different if I instead assemble them in the camera at 6spf, over a period of days? Also, in regards to the camera taking 3-5 rapid exposures at the time-lapse.... is this necessary? Can that be overridden to take only ONE? Well, if you can find a camera that will take just one frame at a time, then no, there wouldn't be any difference (except the need to provide a constant source of power to the camera, and to not touch it.) But I'm not aware of any prosumer camera that will, in fact, take just one frame in interval recording mode. You might check with some of the suppliers of scientific instrumentation; they may have a better handle on this than I do. The fact that the cams I'm familiar with take 3-5 frames at a time in interval mode is one of the reasons I suggested trying a still camera instead. Of course, then you have the logistical nightmare (as I implied) of managing thousands of still images, downloading them, and making sure they're assembled in the right order by your editing program. Finally, I appreciate your suggestion for using a still camera, but there may be logisitical obstacles. Is it possible to program a still digital camera to take an exposure every 6 seconds for up to 15 hours at a time, untended? Don't know. You'd have to provide it with AC power, and I have no idea how you'd store that many images. I think what I would do is simply have the camera (or camcorder) turned on, powered by AC, and hooked to a computer. Write a program for the computer to capture an image every six seconds. Regards, Doug Graham Panda Productions
|