Night Sky Timelapse Possible on HVX?

F

filmguy123

Veteran
I am wondering, with the HVX, if you set it up on a tripod in timelapse mode and with a very slow shutter speed... is it possible to see the stars and get a night sky timelapse?

If so, how well would it turn out on this camera? What settings would I use for the ideal image quality?

Or, is the HVX not light sensitive enough to see anything?
 
720/24p at 2fps with 350-degree shutter, and the lens wide open, you'll get the most exposure you can. Don't know if it'll give you what you want, but that's the best you'll get.
 
I have just recently been working with night sky timelapse, beginning (as Barry suggested with) 720/24p at 2fps and a 350-degree shutter. Shooting a rural moonless Colorado night sky, I was unable to expose any but the very brightest of stars. I then shot with a Canon 20D and an intervalometer (wide-open/3-4 second exposure/400 - 800 ISO) and got really quite good results. It is then not so difficult to bring the still series into a NLE to produce a moving image.

I stand in awe (and have made extensive use) of Barry and ChakaMonkey's frame rate hack but, even in its best and brightest light gathering mode, the HVX sadly doesn't, in my experience, do justice to a starry night sky.
 
Thanks Barry!

Is there a gamma setting that I should use to give better results?

Also, I can't seem to get 2fps on my camera in 720/24p mode. It only goes down to 12fps? And, for 350-degree shutter, how do I achieve this? When I go to synchro scan mode, I'd have to hit the button many, many times to get the shutter up from 180 degrees to 350... I'm guessing that's not the right way to do it?

Finally, why is it that 720/24p gives the best results? Why not 30p, or 1080, or an SD mode? And why does lowering the frame rate down to 2fps help give more light?

Sorry for all the questions, but thank you so much for the help! I just really want to understand what it is I am doing and what is happening in the camera.
 
I'd consider using a digital SLR as opposed to the HVX. Higher resolution and you can do even longer exposures.

Also, do some research on "subtracting dark frames" to help remove digital noise from the longer exposures. Basically, pixels on a CCD will get hot uniformly, so you take a photo of the same duration at the same temperature with the lens cap on. You'll have an image of a noise field that can be subtracted from the final image to clean it up.
 
Good to know, thanks guys. I don't have a digital SLR myself and can't afford one, but I'll see if I can get one for this. I'll buy one someday :)
 
filmguy123 said:
Thanks Barry!

Is there a gamma setting that I should use to give better results?

Also, I can't seem to get 2fps on my camera in 720/24p mode. It only goes down to 12fps? And, for 350-degree shutter, how do I achieve this? When I go to synchro scan mode, I'd have to hit the button many, many times to get the shutter up from 180 degrees to 350... I'm guessing that's not the right way to do it?

Finally, why is it that 720/24p gives the best results? Why not 30p, or 1080, or an SD mode? And why does lowering the frame rate down to 2fps help give more light?

Sorry for all the questions, but thank you so much for the help! I just really want to understand what it is I am doing and what is happening in the camera.
Click to expand...


However, I am still wondering about these things, for knowledge's sake :)
 
Is there a gamma setting that I should use to give better results?
Click to expand...

I would think probably cinelike-d would give you the most lattitude so you might be able to squeeze a bit more into the image. Remember that this comes at the expense of noise though. B-press will give you the least noisy image. For a night sky maybe cinelike-v is a good trade off? This is something that varies depending on personal taste, there isnt a straight yes or no answer.

When I go to synchro scan mode, I'd have to hit the button many, many times to get the shutter up from 180 degrees to 350... I'm guessing that's not the right way to do it?
Click to expand...

You know I thought there was a different way to do this so I checked. The shutter buttons on the side switch you out of degrees and lock you back into video shutter modes (1/1000 ect) so I guess synchro scan from within scene mode is the only other way.

Finally, why is it that 720/24p gives the best results? Why not 30p, or 1080, or an SD mode? And why does lowering the frame rate down to 2fps help give more light?
Click to expand...

The 720 mode has to do with the frame rate hack I believe, here is a link, but basically it involves saving a scene file to an SD card, opening it in a computer and using a text editor to change the frame rate manualy. This allows for a bunch of new frame rates that were not officially supported.

With 2FPS and a 350 shutter you would be getting the most allowable light into the frame. I believe in this mode your actual exposure per frame (and experts please feel free to jump in on this) is around half a second. If you leave your shutter at 180d your exposure time then drops to around 1/4 of a second. Obviously the more exposure time the more light can enter the sensor and the more sensitive the camera can be.

The reason this is the best mode to capture this kind of scene is that interval recording locks you into video cam mode, with a 1/48th shutter speed.

Half a second exposure time is still not much compared to the relative brightness of a night sky, so I wouldn't expect the results to be very good.
 
Nikon D200 has a built-in interval setting. I only shoot timelapses
with this now. The HVX is OK tp play with but it does not have enough
flexibility or image quality to invest hours of time while shooting timelapse.
 
HVXguy said:
Nikon D200 has a built-in interval setting. I only shoot timelapses
with this now. The HVX is OK tp play with but it does not have enough
flexibility or image quality to invest hours of time while shooting timelapse.
Click to expand...


Do you mean for nightsky timelapse, or any timelapse? Would a timelapse be better done, always, with a high end digital SLR? Is there anytime or occasian that an HVX would make for a better timelapse?
 
Lets say you are on a video shoot and you just need a quickie
timelapse that will go into the rest of the show - the HVX is fine for that.
I am talking stock footage for sale is what I only shoot with the Nikon.
 
filmguy123 said:
Do you mean for nightsky timelapse, or any timelapse? Would a timelapse be better done, always, with a high end digital SLR? Is there anytime or occasian that an HVX would make for a better timelapse?
Click to expand...

I can't think of any reason (other than ease of use) that I'd use the HVX for time-lapse over a good digital SLR.

- A modern SLR will have considerably higher resolution. The Nikon D2X will do 4,288 x 2,848. (That's comparable--but not identical--to the 4K RED ONE in resolution.)

- It's likely to have a wider latitude and even better color reproduction.

- An SLR will probably have less noise with a longer exposure.

- You'll have access to a lot of good glass typically used for 35mm photography. Remember a wide open lens like an f/1.2 or f/1.4 will capture more light and won't require as long an exposure. This will mean less noise in the picture.

An SLR is designed for individual frames, with maybe 3 to 5fps bursts, whereas the HVX does an excellent job at 24fps - 60fps. They're different animals.

That said, when you don't need to take advantage of the HVX's (awesome) ability to ingest 24fps (or higher), the digital SLR is a better tool for the job. You can get results that rival a 35mm motion picture camera when used as an HD acquisition device.
 
HVXguy said:
Nikon D200 has a built-in interval setting. I only shoot timelapses
with this now. The HVX is OK tp play with but it does not have enough
flexibility or image quality to invest hours of time while shooting timelapse.
Click to expand...

I did this primarily with a D200... nocturnin ... I totally agree that it's the way to go if you want night skys. Look into the Sigma 30mm F1.4 as well!
 
At this year's Texas Star Party, I saw some incredible night timelapses of the southern sky, an all night sequence. You could easily see the Magellanic, clouds, Milky Way, etc. and it was all done with a digital SLR with a special electronic remote that ran hands off. The stills were then processed into video. A video cam wouldn't be able to do that.
 
Hi
I got some really nice night time lapse recently of the moon rising using the HVX, will try to find it and post a link when I get time.... you could see the moon surface detail quite well and the clouds passing over it as it rose looked cool. I will definitely use it later in a short film or something.
 
Hawkeye said:
Hi
I got some really nice night time lapse recently of the moon rising using the HVX, will try to find it and post a link when I get time.... you could see the moon surface detail quite well and the clouds passing over it as it rose looked cool. I will definitely use it later in a short film or something.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see this...
 
I need to shoot a timelapse that goes from sunset (shooting towards the sun) into the night. But the proper exposure will change so dramatically that I'm not sure how it will work. Can anyone make any recommendations as to a good way to pull this off w/ the HVX-200? I want to use the framerate hack to get the streaks of car headlights.
 
HVX Timelapse...

HVX Timelapse...

You're best bet is to keep it on auto iris, although, from the scene you're describing you'll probably have to switch through the ND filters during filming. Since you'll be recording 2fps, the initial under-exposure (when switching ND filters) only lasts a few frames, which, depending on your editing skills can be reasonably disguised.

Here's an example of some footage I took. This clip starts shortly after I switched the 1/8 ND off (the exposure starts at f/11 and ends at f/2).
http://www.vimeo.com/373930

The benefit of the HVX over SLR cameras is that you can layer your clips, offset them by one frame, and still have nearly continuous motion. As I understand it, most SLRs require a short amount of time to process a long exposure, preventing a seamless continuation between frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top