Use my old Canon 350D for Time Lapse?

eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
edited August 8, 2011 in Cameras
Just need to run this by someone to make sure I'm not missing something.

I've just gotten into time lapse photography and had used my Canon 50D with a $20 intervalometer. My largest card is 8 gig and, shooting raw, was limited to about 350 shots.

I also have a Canon 350D that is hardly ever used at this point (except by my 3 year old budding photographer :lust). Figured I could just get an intervalometer for that camera, add an arca swiss plate to mount it to my tripod and get almost 900 RAW shots per card.

Benefits of using the 350D:
Only 8 MP so smaller RAW files take up less card/HDD space and can still crop as needed for 1080p final
Less concern about wearing out the shutter on my main camera
Shooting at less than ISO 400 so added noise not an issue
Can use my 50D in interim to shoot around

Besides shelling out $40 for the intervalometer and QR plate, I don't see any negatives here...am I missing/forgetting something?
Thanks!
Eyal
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited August 4, 2011
    About the only potential problem I see is that the Canon 350D/XT batteries are not as robust as the xxD series and you may run out of juice for really long sessions. A battery/vertical grip should help, as would an AC power supply or external DC power supply.

    The 350D will heat up during long sessions. A fan and/or solid-state cooling unit might be advisable, even at ISO 400. (Noise probably not visible for VGA resolution but might be visible in high-ambient temperatures and at full-HD resolution.)

    http://www.zodiaclight.com/astrophotography/chipHeating.htm
    http://www.zodiaclight.com/astrophotography/chipHeating2.htm
    http://www.zodiaclight.com/astrophotography/chipHeating3.htm
    http://www.zodiaclight.com/astrophotography/chipHeating4.htm
    http://www.zodiaclight.com/astrophotography/chipHeating5.htm
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2011
    Thanks Ziggy!
    Can't imagine it gets more noisy than any other crop camera.
    Seems his studies were done at iso 1600. I'll be aiming mostly for iso 100-200 depending on light conditions.
    Good point about the battery. Mine are also getting along in years so even less powerful. Will have a go and see if they last a full session. Don't think I'll be doing more than 2 hours at the longest.
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2011
    If the batteries don't last, you could always get some backups. New Canon NB-2LH batteries cost around $50, and there are 3rd party ones for less.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    If the batteries don't last, you could always get some backups. New Canon NB-2LH batteries cost around $50, and there are 3rd party ones for less.
    It is not really practical to switch batteries mid-time lapse, unless the time lapse increments are greater than ~30 seconds and you can time it perfectly to restart the time lapse.


    Personally, if I need more than ~300 frames I just shoot in JPG. Seriously, there's not THAT much of a problem with just shooting JPG and turning the in-camera contrast way down. You just have to know how to manage the exposure throughout the time lapse....

    Either way, it's actually a rare occasion that I'd need more than 300 images in a time lapse. 300 images at 30 FPS is 10 seconds of time lapse; it takes a pretty dang exciting scene for something to be interesting for more than 10 seconds!

    Either way, I can DEFINITELY suggest using a different camera from your main camera. Shooting time lapses can certainly burn your shutter down quickly. I'd rather shoot a time lapse on an older, lower resolution camera so that I can fit more onto a card, and shoot RAW if I absolutely must.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2011
    Thanks again.
    Just pulled the trigger on the QR plate and intervalometer for the old 350D. I'm sure it'll be glad to come out of the drawer and do its part again
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2011
    Did a test run today and found something weird.
    Mounted the 350D on my tripod and used the intervalometer.
    Settings: f/3.5 (to remove aperture flicker), Av mode, ISO 200, manual focus
    Interval 30 sec
    Shot for 2 hours in the backyard

    The finished movie has what look like artifacts/blockiness (not sure of the correct term) that is not present in the 50D timelapse. I used the exact same workflow. Only difference was I forgot to set the WB to daylight as I had before and left it on Auto. I did set a custom WB for all 220+ images in LR prior to running it through the LRtimelapse program.

    Any thoughts?
    Link to the movie:
    http://eoren1.smugmug.com/gallery/18333422_nv53fZ#1417685445_94PWWDD-A-LB
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited August 5, 2011
    One thing that struck me was how the sun cut through the tree, casting shadows and throwing highlights that danced through the sequence. It looks like there may have been some wind too, enhancing the staccato effect. Is that what you are seeing?
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2011
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Did a test run today and found something weird.
    Mounted the 350D on my tripod and used the intervalometer.
    Settings: f/3.5 (to remove aperture flicker), Av mode, ISO 200, manual focus
    Interval 30 sec
    Shot for 2 hours in the backyard

    The finished movie has what look like artifacts/blockiness (not sure of the correct term) that is not present in the 50D timelapse. I used the exact same workflow. Only difference was I forgot to set the WB to daylight as I had before and left it on Auto. I did set a custom WB for all 220+ images in LR prior to running it through the LRtimelapse program.

    Any thoughts?
    Link to the movie:
    http://eoren1.smugmug.com/gallery/18333422_nv53fZ#1417685445_94PWWDD-A-LB

    Hmm, it just looks to me like the video was exported or uploaded with more compression applied. Surely the difference between the original images isn't that dramatic?

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2011
    No. More the lack of sharpness in the grass (bottom left). Also what looks like pixelation on the fence (back right). Seeing this on the original file.
    The 50d video also had the sun in frame and the sand in that one was sharp. The water was almost too contrasty.
    Will try again in am at f8, shorter interval and daylight wb
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2011
    Matt
    It actually IS!
    was shocked when I saw it. Looked at both on the iMac with QuickTime. Marked difference between the two
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2011
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Matt
    It actually IS!
    was shocked when I saw it. Looked at both on the iMac with QuickTime. Marked difference between the two
    Post two images (at full-resolution, and at 1080p) from both cameras? I'm not sure I follow which difference / similarity you are noticing...

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2011
    Will post back in am after the next test. Appreciate the input.
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2011
    This morning's effort
    http://eoren1.smugmug.com/gallery/18333422_nv53fZ#1418183574_ZBB8Lgd-A-LB

    This time at f/8 and with set WB. There are two points in the video when there seems to be a break. Wondering if that is from the aperture flickering a bit.
    I still see what look like compression artifacts in the grass, house but are not as they appear on the original mp4 on my computer.

    For comparison, here is the 50D's effort
    http://eoren1.smugmug.com/gallery/18333422_nv53fZ#1413378030_LX2XSfb-A-LB

    If you look at the handrail, the foreground sand you notice it is ridiculously sharp without any compression type artifacts
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • Dan7312Dan7312 Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2011
    Were the images shot as raw or jpeg? If they we jpeg it possible that changing the WB might have caused some clipping or at least inaccurate colors. Under the covers I think the only way to change the WB of a jpeg is to decompress it, change the WB, then compress it back to jpeg. The result would be that each jpeg would be changed in a slightly different way.

    As an experiment (don't have time right now to try it) take a raw image and make jpeg out of it. Then change WB of the JPEG. Then do the same WB change to the raw and make another jpeg. Then compare the jpegs, maybe as layers in PS combined as a difference, and my guess is the colors would come out slightly different... just a guess though.
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Did a test run today and found something weird.
    Mounted the 350D on my tripod and used the intervalometer.
    Settings: f/3.5 (to remove aperture flicker), Av mode, ISO 200, manual focus
    Interval 30 sec
    Shot for 2 hours in the backyard

    The finished movie has what look like artifacts/blockiness (not sure of the correct term) that is not present in the 50D timelapse. I used the exact same workflow. Only difference was I forgot to set the WB to daylight as I had before and left it on Auto. I did set a custom WB for all 220+ images in LR prior to running it through the LRtimelapse program.

    Any thoughts?
    Link to the movie:
    http://eoren1.smugmug.com/gallery/18333422_nv53fZ#1417685445_94PWWDD-A-LB
    Dan

    http://www.danalphotos.com

    http://www.pluralsight.com

    http://twitter.com/d114
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2011
    Thanks for the thought but all shot in raw (and not mRaw or other form)...
    I really would prefer to use the 350d for time lapse but these test videos are terrible!
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    Looks like it was a software issue...
    here's a comparison video using two different programs. I see the pixelation/blockiness in the sky to the right with the istopmotion program but the grass/house are much better. The flicker is likely from using Av mode and not unlocking the lens which I'll do next time
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • wolf911wolf911 Registered Users Posts: 273 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    You're gonna have to do a write up of some sort of your experience, hardware, software, settings, etc for the rest of us that are interested in getting started. I have a 350D just like you that could be used instead of main camera.
    ~KJS~
    Photos by KJS | Flickr | Blog | 500px | Google+
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    I may have it figured out. Doing a test run now
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    wolf911 wrote:
    you're gonna have to do a write up of some sort of your experience, hardware, software, settings, etc for the rest of us that are interested in getting started.

    +1
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    Alright...I think I've got it.
    With the 350D:
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • wolf911wolf911 Registered Users Posts: 273 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    so how far apart were the shots?
    ~KJS~
    Photos by KJS | Flickr | Blog | 500px | Google+
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    Now that I finally figured this out, I posted my workflow in the video forum.
    The above movie was done at 5 second intervals
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2011
    The answer to the compression artifacts is that there were two video presets on the LRtimelapse site. I grabbed the standard one. The preferred one is the Ultra High Quality set which I used for the last movie. Thanks for all the help!
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited August 8, 2011
    eoren1 wrote: »
    The answer to the compression artifacts is that there were two video presets on the LRtimelapse site. I grabbed the standard one. The preferred one is the Ultra High Quality set which I used for the last movie. Thanks for all the help!

    Wonderful analysis of the problem as well as the search for the solution and ultimate success. thumb.gifclap

    You deserve the credit but thanks for sharing the solution.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • jchinjchin Registered Users Posts: 713 Major grins
    edited August 8, 2011
    wolf911 wrote: »
    You're gonna have to do a write up of some sort of your experience, hardware, software, settings, etc for the rest of us that are interested in getting started. I have a 350D just like you that could be used instead of main camera.

    +1 ... I was thinking of doing something similar with my 50D as a project with my kids; except they want it to be a road trip time lapse. What software did you use? Can you provide links? Thanks.
    Johnny J. Chin ~ J. Chin Photography
    Facebook ♦ Flickr ♦ SmugMug
    SmugMug referral coupon code: ix3uDyfBU6xXs
    (use this for a discount off your SmugMug subscription)
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 8, 2011
    Posted a full write up in the Video forum
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • jchinjchin Registered Users Posts: 713 Major grins
    edited August 8, 2011
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Posted a full write up in the Video forum

    Thanks, but a direct link to the post would have been great.

    Here it is for everyone ... http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1654786
    Did I link the write post?
    Johnny J. Chin ~ J. Chin Photography
    Facebook ♦ Flickr ♦ SmugMug
    SmugMug referral coupon code: ix3uDyfBU6xXs
    (use this for a discount off your SmugMug subscription)
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited August 8, 2011
    Good point. Guess it won't be on the first page or near the top for long...thanks for posting the correct link.
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Sign In or Register to comment.