Has anyone used the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Control for time lapse photography

[bouwy]

Has anyone used the TC-80N3 or something similar for time lapse photography. I have not seen much discussion on our forum (maybe I have not looked to well) re: Time Lapse photography.


My knowledge on this subject is nil. I've read and watched some videos on this topic, but I'm interested to hear the views from our members who has experiences in this subject.





Wally

[Sheiky]

Heya Wally,


I have done quite some time-lapses with the Micnova MQ-TC1. It was the cheap(er) alternative for the Canon.


I must say that it is hard to do. Well that might be the wrong word. It takes patience and practice.


Things to look out for:


- Be ready to sit there for a while(or have a cheap camera and leave it)


- Exposure can be difficult. It's not hard during a steady time of the day, but it's very hard with sunsets/rises


- Change in whitebalance during the time-lapse


- Make sure you have the right interval time. Too long pauses and for example your clouds will jump all over the place instead of sliding. Too short and you'll end up with a lot of photos(really a lot!)


- Make it interesting


And the latest is probably the most difficult one. A time-lapse of a single process isn't that exciting, nor is a time-lapse with a single point of view or steady shot. The best (IMO) time-lapses are those with different scenes, different point of views, but also point of view changes during the time-lapse. Zooming in or using a camera rig for instance.


This year I have shot several scenes which I like, but I cannot make a nice total package out of it. This was my first time-lapse:


http://www.youtube.com/user/Paalman86#p/u/3/YaepqPRtWro


In this specific one there was exposure difference, which needed to be fixed in the end. White balance needed fixing as well since the sun set was giving different colors. The delay between the shots is quite long, 10 seconds I think, which makes us jump around. It took 4 hours to build the iglo, so even with a 10 second delay you can imagine it takes a lot of photos! And I always use RAW :P


Well there are some more things. The main thing is that it is absolutely great to do. I really enjoy it, but it's very hard to make a good final video.


One time-lapse I saw recently that I really like(which has all the things in my short list):


http://vimeo.com/dustinfarrell/landscapes2


Good luck!


Jan

[Daniel Browning]

I'm interested to hear the views from our members who has experiences in this subject.

I love shooting timelapse and I've been doing it for about 5 years now. I don't really consider it to be "photography" in the traditional sense, but rather more a video/cinema technique. It's pretty easy to get started, but as with many other things, there is a host of technical and artistic variables that come into play as you try to improve your output. If you have anything specific you'd like to see discussed, you can post it in this thread.

[bouwy]

Jan...your time lapse link was very good. I have seen [View:http://vimeo.com/dustinfarrell/landscapes2] and that

[Daniel Browning]

<span>There are about a bajillion options for software, so it's hard to choose some times. The easiest method is to shoot reduced-size jpegs and then just put them together in post (e.g. VirtualDub) with no changes whatsoever. But I only ever shoot raw, and I do tend to make a lot of changes.Here's a few examples of raw workflows I have used:

• Cineform:
  + Convert the raw CR2 files to Cineform Raw with the $300 Neo (use DPX2CF and ignore the name).
  + Optional: Use First Light to tune the raw conversion (white balance, demosaic, etc.)
  + Optional: Generate cineform proxies if your system is too slow to edit the raw files directly.
  + Edit the raw files directly in the editor of your choice at the maximum possible 12-bit quality.
• Adobe:
  + Open raw files in After Effects
  + Optional: Tune the raw conversion (white balance, etc.)
  + Optional: Render out for an online workflow if your system is too slow to edit the AE sequence directly
  + Open the AE sequence in Premiere Pro at the maximum possible 12-bit quality.
• Other:
  + Convert all the raw files to TIFF, PNG, or JPEG using the raw converter of your choice.
  + Use a photo-to-video converter (e.g. After Effects or VirtualDub) to make an online video file in some format.
  + Edit the video file in whatever quality you were able to achieve.

The benefit of the Cineform solution is that it's the only compressed raw option. That makes it fast enough to keep the raw through the entire workflow without another intermediate, and the ability to change something and have it reflected immediately. Plus it can be opened in a wide variety of programs. The downside is that First Light may not produce exactly what you're looking for from your raw files, in which case you'd have to render out from raw anyway.

<span>The benefit of the Adobe solution is similar to Cineform -- you can complete the entire workflow without rendering out from raw. The difference is that it restricts you to using only Adobe software and it uses the original uncompressed raw, so it's a lot slower and will probably require you to wait for the cache to re-render after making any changes.


The "other" method usually results in losing significant resolution and/or bit depth before you even get to the point where you can start editing it. If you convert to 16-bit TIFFs, load them in After Effects, then convert to a 12-bit 4K cineform, then you're in good shape for both resolution and bit depth. But if you use something like VirtualDub, which only supports 8-bit, or DnxHD, which only supports 1080p, then you lose a lot of flexibility for zooming, panning, and modifying the sequence in post.


In short, the most flexible workflows that I know of are either Cineform or Adobe. But if you can make do with 8-bit 1080p files, then you can use just about anything.