This is sorta epic. I am just starting lapses from our Tiburon apartment... and a good friend does IR. This combo is simply wonderful. I really enjoy it... thanks for posting. How did you do it, exactly? I sit there and press the shutter while counting it out. No remote trigger here. Hah. =)
2) Set the camera on a tripod, press the video record button, and walk away.
3) Come back when battery is dead, download video.
4) Use AviSynth to double-up frames, multiple times [e.g. 16 times for 16x timelapse]. You don't want to just discard frames [e.g. discard all but every 16th], because it will look stop-motion-ey. By blending them together, all original temporal info remains, and is blurred together similar to how this video looks.
@jamesrcollier I downloaded a program called virdub to do create videos into time lapse, but never figured it out. It seems it would be much easier. I don't mind traditional lapses, but I really need to start experimenting. All this info here is boffo. Cheers, and thanks much!
3) Less painfully, I experimented to set the exposure. I believe I settled on ISO 800, 30 seconds, and aperture as open as possible.
4) I set the shutter on "Continuous Shooting", plugged a manual bulb into the bulb socket, and locked it down. [Quality was set on medium-size, high-quality jpeg to save card space. I also had the dual-battery adapter, but AC adapter would have been better.]
6) Downloaded photos, removed hot-pixels in all photos [all in the same place] and adjusted contrast via a Photoshop recorded action, then strung the photos together into an AVI with AviSynth.
It was an extremely time-intensive process! For starters, SLRs are terrible for IR photography, because the light takes four separate paths each for a] Focus, b] Exposure, c] User view, and d] Recording. Recording is the only one involving the sensor, and the three others are blind in IR.
1) Buy a snappy-camera that also does HD video, and have it modified for IR-only [internal IR-block filter replaced with visibly opaque IR-pass]. Snappy cams are superior to SLRs for IR because all four functions [user view, focus, exposure, recording] go to just ONE place: the sensor - which sees in IR perfectly fine. So there is NO loss of functionality [except ability to take color photos], and very little sacrifice in shutter speeds vs. full color.
@jamesrcollier THIS IS AWESOME. You know you are going to help a lot of people with this explanation. I have a point and shoot I am ready to dedicate to this. =)
This is sorta epic. I am just starting lapses from our Tiburon apartment... and a good friend does IR. This combo is simply wonderful. I really enjoy it... thanks for posting. How did you do it, exactly? I sit there and press the shutter while counting it out. No remote trigger here. Hah. =)
unclefishbits 11 months ago
@unclefishbits Thanks. So, I'll tell you how I did it, which was the really hard way. And the way I do it now, which is the easy way!
The hard way (this video):
1) Took an unmodified DSLR (Digital Rebel), put a Tiffen #87 filter on, and set it on a tripod.
2) Painstakingly set the focus through trial and error. [Take a picture, then preview, zoom all the way in to see how well or poorly focused. Repeat.]
jamesrcollier 11 months ago
@jamesrcollier
2) Set the camera on a tripod, press the video record button, and walk away.
3) Come back when battery is dead, download video.
4) Use AviSynth to double-up frames, multiple times [e.g. 16 times for 16x timelapse]. You don't want to just discard frames [e.g. discard all but every 16th], because it will look stop-motion-ey. By blending them together, all original temporal info remains, and is blurred together similar to how this video looks.
Good luck!
jamesrcollier 11 months ago
@jamesrcollier I downloaded a program called virdub to do create videos into time lapse, but never figured it out. It seems it would be much easier. I don't mind traditional lapses, but I really need to start experimenting. All this info here is boffo. Cheers, and thanks much!
unclefishbits 11 months ago
@unclefishbits
3) Less painfully, I experimented to set the exposure. I believe I settled on ISO 800, 30 seconds, and aperture as open as possible.
4) I set the shutter on "Continuous Shooting", plugged a manual bulb into the bulb socket, and locked it down. [Quality was set on medium-size, high-quality jpeg to save card space. I also had the dual-battery adapter, but AC adapter would have been better.]
5) Came back when batteries dead.
jamesrcollier 11 months ago
@unclefishbits
6) Downloaded photos, removed hot-pixels in all photos [all in the same place] and adjusted contrast via a Photoshop recorded action, then strung the photos together into an AVI with AviSynth.
It was an extremely time-intensive process! For starters, SLRs are terrible for IR photography, because the light takes four separate paths each for a] Focus, b] Exposure, c] User view, and d] Recording. Recording is the only one involving the sensor, and the three others are blind in IR.
jamesrcollier 11 months ago
@unclefishbits The better, easier way:
1) Buy a snappy-camera that also does HD video, and have it modified for IR-only [internal IR-block filter replaced with visibly opaque IR-pass]. Snappy cams are superior to SLRs for IR because all four functions [user view, focus, exposure, recording] go to just ONE place: the sensor - which sees in IR perfectly fine. So there is NO loss of functionality [except ability to take color photos], and very little sacrifice in shutter speeds vs. full color.
jamesrcollier 11 months ago
@unclefishbits (Seems these comments get posted backwards. Start from bottom up.)
jamesrcollier 11 months ago
@jamesrcollier THIS IS AWESOME. You know you are going to help a lot of people with this explanation. I have a point and shoot I am ready to dedicate to this. =)
unclefishbits 11 months ago