Use my old Canon 350D for Time Lapse?

eoren1 · August 4, 2011

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!

ziggy53 · 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

eoren1 · 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.

ThatCanonGuy · 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 Saville · 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=

eoren1 · 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

eoren1 · 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

ziggy53 · 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?

Matthew Saville · 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=

eoren1 · 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

eoren1 · 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

Matthew Saville · 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=

eoren1 · August 5, 2011

Will post back in am after the next test. Appreciate the input.

eoren1 · 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

Dan7312 · 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

eoren1 · 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!

eoren1 · 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

wolf911 · 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.

eoren1 · August 7, 2011

I may have it figured out. Doing a test run now

ThatCanonGuy · 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

eoren1 · August 7, 2011

Alright...I think I've got it.
With the 350D:

wolf911 · August 7, 2011

so how far apart were the shots?

eoren1 · 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

eoren1 · 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!

ziggy53 · 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.

clap

You deserve the credit but thanks for sharing the solution.

jchin · 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.

eoren1 · August 8, 2011

Posted a full write up in the Video forum

jchin · 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?

eoren1 · 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.

Use my old Canon 350D for Time Lapse?

Comments