Time lapse-Very fast to a complete stop?

[Filmkid2003]

Hey everyone. I have an HPX170 and I want to shoot a time lapse scene during daytime in the city where everything is moving very fast but then slows down to a complete stop, as if time has just stopped (like when Morpheus freezes time in the training program in "The Matrix"). Can anyone tell me how I would go about doing this? Is it possible to have a nice smooth transition from lightning fast to a complete standstill over a period of a few seconds when shooting time lapse? I will be shooting in 2fs mode on my HPX170. Thanks.

[Stephenh]

I don't know how effective that would be, if at all possible, trying to do it in camera. You would be better off using a software plugin like Timewarp in Avid Media Composer which allows multiple variations of speed and stop motion effects.

Steve.

[Phenixone]

There is nor ramping option on the HPX 170or HVX200a.
why don't you shoot the sequence with a still camera, you would get a better control of the exposure.

[ChipG]

Agree, use a still cam and time re-map in post however you want.

[kidwoo]

You need to at some point pass 'real time' and even slower......and you're not going to get that look with an intervalometer/DSLR that maxes out at 8fps or whatever.

I would actually shoot at 60fps because you can easily speed it up and drop unwanted frames. But you can also drop to a smooth 40% or 50% depending on your timeline base without anything odd needing to be done up to that point.

I guess it depends a lot on what your total time coverage needs to be and how fast you want to drop to still. If the ramping transition is quick, you can probably get away with it pretty easily.

[Filmkid2003]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. So, you guys are saying I should just shoot at 60fps at 1080i and then speed the footage up to say 1000% or so to get the super fast effect of time lapse footage? Will that give me the blur effect I want to get when shooting at 2fps? The reason I'm asking all this is because I am worried that if I shoot at 2fps, I won't be able to get my "freezing time" effect (everything in the scene slows down to a complete stop) without jerkiness because the footage was only shot at 2 frames every second for that time lapse effect instead of 60fps. So, if I shoot at 60fps and then speed the footage up in post, would I have to drop some frames as well, to get the time lapse look? Oh, and I edit with Premiere Pro CS3. Would I have to get After Effects in order to achieve the effect I'm after? Thanks.

[Phenixone]

Ok I got what you need to do.
first kidwoo made a point go 60p I would recommend 720p over 1080 because of a memory issue (and also I'm not sure the 170 takes 1080 at 60).
depending of the timing of your final sequence my guess is that you will need a LOT of space !
for memory space I'm thinking of some few options.
1. Firestore : Firewire, no move so it wont disconnect. This is good, not too expensive and easy to set up.

2. the AJA KI : basically the same idea an external hard drive but this time it records uncompresses HD SDI footage from the ... HD SDI output! I have never tried it but I checked it recently and seems pretty cool. also may be a bit more expensive as it just came out a month ago (i think)

3. Also never tested but I think the P2 are hot swappable. you could then get at least 3 (I would go for at least 4 just to make sure) and hot swap them. Problem is : you need to be really quick on the ingesting on the computer to clear your card. also, you habe to be there all the time to swap and if you miss it you are DOOMED ! (so in the end it's not a solution)

Personally I would go fir the Firestore but if you have time, check out the AJA solution, it seems pretty cool and stuff :)

PS : Oh and I forgot the ultimate solution would be to get a camera that is ramping capable (like the varicam)

[kidwoo]

PS : Oh and I forgot the ultimate solution would be to get a camera that is ramping capable (like the varicam)


Actually that's probably the best idea. Unless of course you dig figuring this kind of thing out. (I do)

Can't be that expensive to rent one for a day, and you're already familiar with panasonic's layouts.


Anything you speed up in CS3 (and yes after effects typically does a better job), will lose frames. "Intentionally drop" is more correct. That's what you want though. That's how it speeds up footage. But shooting at 60fps allows you some leeway all the way down to half of 'reality' speed. Generally speaking, you want multiples of your original footage. 60fps at 400% faster plays at 15fps in a 30fps timeline. 15 is half of 30 so that portion will look smooth. That kind of thing.

Blurring comes mostly from shutter speed more than anything.

I've got some ideas but clear this up for me. How long of a shot do you want (how long will your camera be sitting there recording), and how long/short is this transition from hyperspeed to stop going to be?

[AwakenedFilms]

Hi FilmKid,
A variation on the theme can be viewed on my demo reel: http://awakenedfilms.com/reel.html.

Shot the cloud/rainbow timelapse with a DSLP, sped up and slowed down in post to mimic a fast timelapse that was transitioned to realtime.


Jason

[Filmkid2003]

Hey guys, thanks again for taking the time to think through and reply to my questions. First, Jason, nice demo reel. I'm very impressed! Now, after reading Phenixone and Kidwoo's posts, I think I know what I need to do. Kidwoo, the part of the scene I will be shooting with everything going from super fast to a dead stop will be less than 30 seconds long. So, Kidwoo, can I take my 60fps footage, and put it into After Effects and have it go from 400% speed (so it looks exactly like super fast time lapse) down to a time frozen stop in a matter of seconds, and have the end part of the scene where everything is frozen look perfectly sharp without the slightest blurring? Is there a way to do that and have it look smooth and realistic looking in After Effects? Also, what shutter speed should I use to get the time lapse blurring effect and when I use that shutter speed, will everything still look blurry when its slowed down to a stop in After Effects? Thanks.

[Phenixone]

you'd better use a plugin to do the blur since your camera won'd really slow exposures

[kidwoo]

Yeah you're not going to be able to screw with shutter speeds in one clip. To be honest though, if you speed something up enough, you'll get kind of a streaking appearance to the eye that kind of dupicates what you're after. To be honest, unless you've got something constant like clouds, the fast part of your time lapse could involve actually taking a few shots and quickly changing scene files without too much skipping. Just be really careful not to move the camera position at all obviously. I'd only suggest this in the really fast portion of your lapse though, like 800% or higher.

30 seconds? Oh man that's an eternity. I was thinking like 8.


What you want to avoid is odd frame blending that occurs when you get off of the multiples of your timeline base. (30 or 24).

What I was thinking is instead of doing a true ramp, break your transition down into segments. Like 2 second bits of %400, %200, %100, %50, %25(if you're timeline is 24).

That's why I said if it's quick enough, it should appear pretty smooth. But keep in mind something like %25 isn't going to look smooth in a 30fps timeline since that comes out to 7 1/2 frames. You need to parse your numbers appropriately. Once you get below %50 you are going to have to deal with some frame blending since below that your program needs to create frames to fill the space as you spread out the footage.


Something I forgot to mention too. This is absolutely within twixtor territory. It's an expensive program but I've seen some pretty impressive things done with it. (like this exact effect)


At this point I'd say just go out and shoot something today and start trying some things. That will tell you more than anything if what's been suggested here is even going to work at all or if you need some more ideas.

[Filmkid2003]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies...again! Here's what I'm thinking of doing. I'm going to be tilting from the sky, down along a skyscraper (showing an artsy fartsy reflection of a cathedral and time lapse clouds in the mirrored windows of a skyscraper across the street), and then pan to either the left or right to show the the city street where people and cars are whizzing by at lightning speed. Now, like you said, Kidwoo, if I don't have something constant like clouds, I could intercut footage without any hiccups. But, I definitely want to show the time lapse clouds slowing down to a stop along with the traffic! I actually came across a youtube video last night where somebody ramped up the speed of their footage, then slowed it back down using the Twixtor plugin in After Effects, like you said. Can I do what I want to using Twixtor without having to intercut the scene so I can have the time lapse clouds along with the traffic and people slowing down to a dead stop? Thanks again.

[kidwoo]

Oh you're panning?

That's a constant......don't intercut clips or you're pretty much assured to get abrubt jumps. That PLUS the clouds means this should be one clip.


And check out the price of twixtor. You may just want to rent a varicam :D

[Filmkid2003]

Well, I'm only going to pan to the traffic/people and then stop and hold. I won't be panning AS I shoot the traffic/people. The camera will be on a tripod so, I could always intercut after the pan if I have to, since the traffic will be just a blur, as long as I don't have the clouds in that part of the shot. Looks like I might not be able to have the clouds in the frame when I'm shooting the traffic/people because, I just thought of something! Since the camcorder will be on a tripod, what if I shoot the tilt from the top of the skyscraper, showing the cathedral reflection with clouds, down to eyelevel, then pan over to show the traffic, and make sure the clouds are NOT in the frame with the traffic/people, and shoot all this at 2fs. THEN, without moving the camcorder, switch over to 60fps mode, and shoot some more traffic/people. That way, since the first part of the traffic/people scene will be 2fs, everything will be nice and blurry, then, I can intercut in post to the 60fps footage already at 400% speed to match the 2fps footage, and ramp the 60fps footage down to a complete stop! You think that will work? Will I be able to match the exposure of the 2fps with the 60fps if I change the shutter speed when I shoot the 60fps part? That way, I can have my time lapse clouds in the beginning, and blurry cars and people until I intercut to the 60fps part where I'll have to add blur for a very short amount of time since I'll be ramping that part down to a dead stop! What do you think?

[kidwoo]

The panning thing is going to be tough to keep smooth. It's almost guaranteed that you'll get a visual skip.

Like I said. Go out and try it and see if you can pull it off. Run your pan, switch frame rates mid shot and see if you can do it.

[Filmkid2003]

Hahaha! I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I won't be switching frame rates until I'm done panning. That way the pan part will be 2fps and after I'm done panning, I'll switch over to 60fps and record more traffic/people!

[kidwoo]

Go for it.


That might actually work. :D

[Matt Ely]

Another thought is to have two cameras side by side, one at 2fps, and one at 60fps. You could rig a plate out of plywood to hold both cameras on one tripod, so the shot with the pan would have exactly the same motion, lighting timing etc. And then combine the two shots when and where you want in editing. I have a shot on my last reel which I did this with. elyandco.biz. Just my two cents, Matt

[docrock]

I think you're on to something with two different cuts....1@2fps and 1@60, however, ANY panning done at 2fps is going to get awfully blurry.

Have you thought any more about the earlier mention of shooting your pan with a still camera (kind of "stop motion" type?)? This way, you could actually time lapse your pan and down rez your images to 2mpxl to cut with your static 60fps traffic shot. This seems to be a pretty simple shot and you can then do whatever you want in post with filters.

Shooting and stopping motion in the 170/200 is going to look like shi*, IMHO. Still grabs, unless COMPLETELY still (impossible with moving traffic/people) from these cameras don't look that great if you'r coming off of gorgeous motion footage on a slow to fast back to zero TL. IMO.

J

[Filmkid2003]

Thanks for the suggestions, Matt and Dorock. The only thing is, I don't have two camcorders to use and I don't even have one DSLR camera to use if I was to shoot this scene with a still camera. Dorock, I was kind of worried about how the scene would look when I have everything come to a dead stop but, I looked at some videos on youtube that people did with a camcorder where they did the "time freeze" trick in After Effects and when the people are "frozen" in the videos, they look pretty sharp to me. No bluriness or any jerky effect. If I had a DSLR like a Nikon D20 (I think thats the model number) or something similar, I would just shoot the scene with that but, I spent all my money on my HPX170. Curse this economy! Anyway, I'm going to try the 2fps, then 60fps this weekend and I'll let you guys know how it works out! Although, I don't have After Effects yet. Does anyone know if I can use After Effects CS4 with Premiere Pro CS3 or will there be some compatability issues there? And why does Twixtor have to be so dang expensive?!!!

[docrock]

No "Dang The Economy" there! You got a sweetheart of a camera, for sure. You'll be fine with the 170. Keep in mind, even the cheapest, no frills still camera will do the job...HD video is only 2megapixels....compared to the relative size of still shots, even a friends el-cheapo ELPH, 7mpxl cam will give you some decent shots.

Dunno...you seem to have some excellent ideas, and yes....After Effects will work (mostly) backwards compatible from CS4 to 3...Premier is where your limitations will be, if any. It matured as a program right along with the HVX200 and HPX170...you'll be fine. A bit of a learning curve with After Effects, but worth a shot if you're proficient with Premier...and a helluva lot cheaper than going the Twixtor route. (Does Twixtor have a trial?)

Guess it might be kinda tough to match up bookend shots from a still camera to the footage from the 170...I'm curious how it's going to turn out, keep us posted.

[Filmkid2003]

Okay, guys, I went down the street and just did a test shoot at a nearby four-way intersection of cars going by, stopping, etc. The first shot I did was 12 minutes long at 2fps and 360 degree synchro scan shutter. Then, since the camera was on the tripod, I did the same exact shot at 720/60p and 360 synchro scan shutter. The problem is, when I played back the first shot, which was recorded at 2fps, the cars were blurry but, they weren't going super fast like they should for a time lapse shot. Do I still have to speed the footage up in post to get that blurry super fast time lapse look or did I do something wrong? Now, the second part which was shot at 720/60p and 360 synchro scan shutter looked exactly like 720/60p should look, obviously. Would it be better to shoot at 1080/60i instead since I'll be speeding up and slowing down that part to a complete stop? Sorry, I'm a total noob when it comes to time lapse stuff. I'm willing to learn to get it to perfection though! Hey, Dorock, what $200- $300 still camera would you recommend for doing HD quality time lapse shots? Obviously, the Mark II is out of the question! Thanks.

[Phenixone]

You probably recorded in a P format like 720 24P instead of PN which would have got your footage to be xlrated

[Filmkid2003]

Hey, Phenixone, you're right. I did shoot in P instead of PN. What do you mean by xlrated? I don't understand. Why is PN better than P when doing time lapse? And, should I shoot in 30PN instead of 24PN? By the way, when I put the footage in Premiere and sped it up to 2000%, I got the blurry fast time lapse effect I was after. One more thing, my 60i footage, when I slow it down to a stop, the cars are fuzzy instead of in sharp focus. I know camcorders aren't meant to take sharp still photos but, I expected the cars to be somewhat in sharp focus even with the HPX170. Is there any way to get around this with a certain shutter speed or will I have to do my time lapse with a DSLR camera if I want the traffic and people in sharp focus when its at a dead stop? Thanks.

[Phenixone]

accelerated X-L-R-ated ... Forget it :)

[Filmkid2003]

Hey guys, I'm thinking about doing what you said using a DSLR camera, taking still photos and time re-mapping in post. How would I go about doing this with a DSLR camera, say, using the Nikon D5000? Also, can I get smooth looking "super fast down to dead stop" motion using this method? I know the dead stop, frozen in time part of the scene will look better using a DSLR camera since it captures still photos so, that's why I'd like to use a DSLR camera to do this scene. Can you guys explain how I would go about doing this? Thanks.