IISAC11 smooth timelapse part A

[Bassnut]

Hi Guys

A sunset time lapse (http://fredsastro.smugmug.com/Timelapse/Timelapse-video/16566156_JZtdwb#1558786672_QQ6BJqC) which turned out pretty smooth I think.

Taken with a 5D Mk2, 24mm 1.4fL lens at 10 sec exposures 3200ISO and 30 fps, a frame rate which was a luxury and worth the bother.

No processing whatsoever, which is a nice change. Thanks Phil Hart for advance technical advice on every aspect of the capture (lens, ISO, exposure etc).

The 24mm 1.4L lens is a timelapse wonder, way better than everything else ive tried.

Movement via my Timelapse Machine on an EQ3 mount.

[jjjnettie]

Very cool indeed!

[sheeny]

Oh Fred... I get massive artifacts! :sadeyes: Anyone else have that problem?

It snaps back to nice sharp video about the 9s and 18s marks but deteriorates through square blocky over sized pixels to a very arty oil painting look... but I realise that, unfortunately, that's not what you're trying to achieve.

Great choice in music:thumbsup:... the glimpses of good video I get, makes me want to see it all properly. What I can see looks awesome!

Al.

[Bassnut]

Oh dear, no , I get smooth playback the whole way, mmm be interested to see what others get. Maybe you have to let it cache for a while 1st?.

Thanks JJJ.

[jjjnettie]

twas good all the way through for me.

[sheeny]

I tried letting it cache a while... no difference.:sadeyes: I checked a couple of your other timelapses and they were fine:thumbsup: (very good actually:D). Hmmm, I'm running a reasonably up-spec puter these days too...:shrug:

Al.

[iceman]

I had that problem with some of Phil's videos on smugmug.

Not sure if he ever sorted it out?

[iceman]

In fact I have the same problem with yours.

Check with Phil - see if he figured out the problem. Cause I can't watch it :(

[Bassnut]

Well, heres (http://fredsastro.smugmug.com/Timelapse/Timelapse-video/16566156_JZtdwb#1558837906_x88CrHb) a nasty low res version full of artifacts (8 meg vs 50 meg). Does that work ?.

Hope your not on an Apple Al, that would explain much ;-)

[barx1963]

Played fine here! Very nice Fred.

[acropolite]

Played just fine on my iPad, lovely timelapse, I've never ventured past 800 ISO on my 5dII, might give 3200 a try based on your experience.

[erick]

Same here Fred - played fine. Thanks.

[Octane]

That was beautiful, Fred. :)

H

[hotspur]

Wowa-I've never seen anything like this before-that's amazing-I've got to try and learn how to do this-really well done-stunning!:eyepop:

[Omaroo]

Great work Fred :thumbsup: No artefacting whatsoever on my iMac. Smooth-as.

Geez, the F/1.4 really did give you what I thought it would, in comparison to those I used. One is now on my wish-list.

I've uploaded mine to Vimeo as well as a comparison. http://vimeo.com/31367809

[naskies]

Beautiful!

[Bassnut]

Well, I like it Chris, again, the overall production makes it sort of natural and organic (with the sound track). Dont know if the vimeo res is that flash tho, theres some nasty artifacts there, and you could process in PS with a custom action to fix the exposure/noise right up.

[iceman]

Still no good. Full of blotchiness.

It's something to do with smugmug and certain computers/browser versions. Upload it to vimeo, and then speak to Phil to see if he figured out the smugmug problem.

[iceman]

Attached is an example of the blotchiness. At some moments it's clear and looks great, but most of the video is full of these massive blocks.



Chris I'm getting some artefacts on yours too, but not in the same way. Most of yours looks good, but in some parts the jpeg compression seems to have produced artefacts, see attached.

[hotspur]

Just had to come back here and watch this again-its just magical,and the music that goes with it suits very well.A very masterful creation,the clouds go well with it.

I cannot believe how much detail is seen in the LMC!,best of all-no PP! just goes to show what an amazing machine the 5D2 is,and what a wonderful piece of glass that lens is.

Not sure if a time lapse can be IOTW but this just so so,so good!

thanks for posting.

[sheeny]

Yup. That's what I was getting.:sadeyes:

Al.

[Bassnut]

Thanks guys.
Ive had lots of feedback that the playback is fine, more than not.
Im wondering if smugmug uses coding thats not universal on playback codecs or something.

[iceman]

Just upload it to vimeo and be done with it ;)

[Steffen]

Hi Fred,
it plays perfectly on this Mac (Safari 5.1.1 and QuickTime plugin).

Can you let me in on how you did it? You say the lens was a 24mm f/1.4, was it shot wide open? Also, how did you move the camera? Did you use a pano head or a rail or something? Was the 10 second exposure merely to achieve the required exposure or does it also affect the look of the time lapse (smoothness-wise)?

I must say, I'm quite impressed with this one.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Bassnut]

Done
http://vimeo.com/31408242 (http://vimeo.com/31408242)


Is this OK?.

[Jen]

:thumbsup::thumbsup: very cool Fred :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Yes it was wide open. Movement was with a homemade dual axis stepper controller with exposure timer built in on an EQ3 pointing alt az.

As Phil Hart found, always the shorter the exposure the better for smoothness. The 1.4f was fast enough with the 5D at 3200iso to allow 10 sec exposures at night. The noise at 3200 is acceptable.
I have a 12sec period to allow 2 secs for the 5D to download a raw to the card after a 10sec exposure. Its very close, the cam is busy, but it works.

Ive tried 20 and 30 sec exposures with a 2.8f lens, but it doesnt come close to 1.4f at 10secs for smoothness, noise and brightness/sharpness, the difference is very noticable. The wide angle 24mm also makes a difference.

I also cranked the frame rate to 30fps which is way over the top, but the total movie time seemed appropriate. Longer wouldve got boring although 15-20fps would probably looked OK smooth wise.

Composition is the real deal of course, which I hope to learn, but this was a good technical exercise to start with.

[sheeny]

OK??? Its GORGEOUS Fred!:thumbsup:

:bowdown:

Thanks for posting where I could see it too.;)

BTW I think you could make it a lot longer before I'd get bored of it!

Al.

[iceman]

Brilliant! It worked out fantastic.

I love the red lights and silhouettes standing at the dam, and then one of them walks to the top of the hill.

Love it!

I usually go with 25fps. Your 30fps is very smooth!

[jenchris]

If you've got an exposure of 10 seconds, how do you get 30 frames per sec? (I'm just confused)

The movie is just so entrancing

[iceman]

You take an image every 10 seconds, over several hours.

You play back those frames at 30 frames per second.

30fps is the playback speed. 1 frame every 10 seconds is the capture rate. So you compress 2 hours of time into 30 seconds (for example).

[Ric]

Lovely work Fred.

[troypiggo]

Very smooth and beautiful on my machine. Lovely.

[Octane]

Jen,

Say, you captured 600 x 10 second exposures. To turn that data into a smooth film, you choose a frame rate, of, say, 24.97 (25) [PAL/SECAM] or 30 [NTSC] frames per second.

So, say you choose to play back 30 individual frames per second for a smooth video, you end up with: 600/30 = 20 seconds of film.

H

[Bassnut]

Thanks guys. Mmmm, methinks I should stick to standard size and frame rates for video, that might reduce playback grief. I appears smug mug plays as posted and vimeo converts to the nearest standard, reducing problems, but also looses some quality if the posted format is way off a standard.