35mm Motion Picture vs DSLR Timelapse

[Saul Rodgar]

I'm not usually the one championing DSLRs on this forum but show me one timelapse-capable 35mm camera that will fit, with lenses, filters, media, and sticks in a backpack that one person can carry comfortably all day. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I don't know of one.

 

Indeed, even carrying a K3 (and a small fluid head Manfrotto tripod) around can get heavy and burdensome, as I recently found out traveling across the US, mostly by train. The f-ing K3 camera broke after only 1 roll of footage was exposed in NYC and I was left carrying it all the way back, (and the unexposed stock) a useless hunk of metal that was once a working 16 mm camera. :( I decided not to take any of my bigger more robust cameras out of weight and space limitations, and see where that got me.

 

I also shot HD on a Panasonic HPX 170, but I hate its digital picture quality more often than not, so . . .

Edited October 15, 2009 by Saul Rodgar

[Stephen Williams]

Are we really arguing about the merits of a video tap versus shooting "blind"? I think the merits of taps were obvious 30 years ago. If I were in a situation where the budget allowed for a tap, I would go with one every time, even if it meant I had to hike it up a mountain myself.

 

Hi,

 

I think a tap is almost always a PITA & a time waster unless the camera is on a crane. People need to concentrate on what they are doing & let the operator frame the shot.

 

Stephen

[K Borowski]

Stephen, I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

 

While paying attention for a thirty-second or even a two-minute shot would give only the most video-game addled minds difficulty, paying attention to camera condition over a four-hour span in the freezing cold is a very challenging situation.

 

It is kind of hard, too, to "pay attention" to whether or not a bridge is unacceptably shaking during an exposure, or determining whether or not the latent imaging occurred before or after your lens fogged up when you had to take a pee break.

 

Just saying, when you have a camera locked off in the middle of the night somewhere, in the freezing cold, it is easy to get occupied by personal needs like warmth and hunger, and is more like baby-sitting than camera operating.

 

 

But in spite of all of that, I do love timelapse!

Edited October 15, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[K Borowski]

I think a tap is almost always a PITA & a time waster unless the camera is on a crane.

 

I think that not having a director's chair on the crane and an operator is needlessly safe and lazy too, so there :P

[K Borowski]

Have you guys seen an Eyemo? it is tiny and the WW2 guys carried them around through the whole war it is about the same size as a Bolex.

 

I've never seem an Eyemo, but have heard that they are very similar to H16s, just with a film magazine on steroids. They almost seem like, except for the film magazine, that their body sizes are smaller though, than the H16.

 

I have no doubt that that camera would weigh less than a pro DSLR alone. What about with the intervalometer though?

 

Personally, I've always preferred (since I never use a video tap for budgetary reasons) clicking off the frames by hand (well, with a bulb at least) to using automation.

[Robert Houllahan]

I have no doubt that that camera would weigh less than a pro DSLR alone. What about with the intervalometer though?

 

Personally, I've always preferred (since I never use a video tap for budgetary reasons) clicking off the frames by hand (well, with a bulb at least) to using automation.

 

 

The Intervalometer is small and light the whole rig does weigh a little more than a pro dslr alone however a single 7ah 12v gell cell will run it for a week and that is not the case with the Nikon I am using which has a much heavier environmental box (I have a rubberized bag for the Eyemo) and a solar power system. As for automation I really do not have the time to sit there at the camera for the 6-7 hours at a time I am shooting and click a button. The NCS motor I have has presets that you can chain together and a timer for start and stop of filming or to put a delay in etc. very nicely though out plus long duration shutter for night time stars etc...

 

-Rob-

[Mei Lewis]

DSLR's will likely be set up to take near instantaneous exposures compared to the actual frame rate - in effect an ultra short shutter angle - in comparison a 35mm could be set up with a very slow motor and a heavy amount of ND to keep that smoother 180deg shutter angle effect.

 

Say your rate is 1 frame per 10sec - thats a 5sec exposure - a DSLR image will get very noisy yes/no (?)

 

 

You could set up the DSLR with heavy ND too, just like 35mm. And no, a 5 sec exposure at a low ISO won't be noisey on a DSLR - using ISO100 you'd have effectively zero noise.

 

Other people have mentioned weight as an issue, I don't know how heavy a film camera would be but an ideal 'pro DSLR' for timelapse would be a Canon 5D Mk2 which weighs 810g body only. Add an extra 100g for a battery and memory card. Lenses can be heavy, but I think they tend to be lighter than motion lenses because stills photographer have to carry them around all day.

[David Rakoczy]

Stephen, I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

 

While paying attention for a thirty-second or even a two-minute shot would give only the most video-game addled minds difficulty, paying attention to camera condition over a four-hour span in the freezing cold is a very challenging situation.

 

It is kind of hard, too, to "pay attention" to whether or not a bridge is unacceptably shaking during an exposure, or determining whether or not the latent imaging occurred before or after your lens fogged up when you had to take a pee break.

 

Just saying, when you have a camera locked off in the middle of the night somewhere, in the freezing cold, it is easy to get occupied by personal needs like warmth and hunger, and is more like baby-sitting than camera operating.

 

But for the most part that is all you do once a time lapse sequence begins... baby-sit. I have a Norris Intervalometer and Capping Shutter and it is funny you mention this, Karl, but yes, we have shot on a bridge in the middle of the night for 4 hours in 19 degree weather... miserable... and that is all we did was baby-sit. On the other hand while relaxing in shorts shooting a balmy Florida summer sunrise that is all we did as well... baby-sat. Once you add movement and you really want to see where you are in your pan/ tilt sequence then yes a monitor (may) help depending on the amount of ND being used... but for lock off time lapse (as is most time lapse) it is set it up RIGHT (a key factor) as you don't want to realize 3 hours later you were at the wrong Stop :o. Speaking of monitors, we were never allowed a monitor on the Set of Silk Stalkings. The Producer entrusted the operating, eye lines, cheats etc.. to the Operator... me. It did not take long to see how much faster we moved without one. On the other hand, I now carry a black and white monitor so the crew can see the frame lines and my client can see what I am doing (and why)...

[K Borowski]

David, there are certainly advantages/disadvantages to working with a monitor, but I think they are invaluable for situations with varying degrees of uncontrollability, so you know, more or less, instantly if you need to reshoot (at least if you know how to interpret a monitor with film as it obviously isn't your actual final image unless you had some sort of elaborate beam-splitter setup that stole a stop and a half from you).

 

I remember seeing some behind the scenes footage from "Star Trek." They were working without video taps at least as of the first season of the show and had to shoot all these extra takes of Leonard Nimoy in a room where they were filling it up with pink gas. They couldn't be certain how the gas would photograph with the lights so they shot a lot of safety to avoid an even-more-costly reshoot.

 

Meanwhile, in "2001" Stanley Kubrick was *already* using a primitive video tap system.

 

 

I guess it depends on the circumstances, and a lot of times timelapses go fine, but if there is a chance there was some shake, a bad cloud formation, or the tripod got knocked out of alignment by a gust of wind, I'd want to know that instantly, so I could pack up and go home and try again the following day, rather than putting another three hours into freezing my hindquarters off needlessly.

 

At the same time, I think you are right David, there are a lot of people that "chimp" video taps and playback monitors, the same as with DSLR screens. For a lot of easy shots, if the operator is paying attention, and the camera is set properly, they aren't necessary.

[Stephen Williams]

Meanwhile, in "2001" Stanley Kubrick was *already* using a primitive video tap system.

 

Hi Karl,

 

He was shooting for months or was it years? I can see how the tap saved time & money.

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

Its was over 3 years !!!

[David Rakoczy]

..and you would know if the tripod had been kicked... because it would either be you or your ac who kicked it... no one else comes NEAR the rig once settled and started.

[John Brawley]

David, there are certainly advantages/disadvantages to working with a monitor, but I think they are invaluable for situations with varying degrees of uncontrollability, so you know, more or less, instantly if you need to reshoot (at least if you know how to interpret a monitor with film as it obviously isn't your actual final image unless you had some sort of elaborate beam-splitter setup that stole a stop and a half from you).

 

 

I've done a lot of timelapse over the years and am very familiar with the Norris as well. The main disadvantage I've found with DSLR's is with longer exposure times. They DO get noisy as you go towards longer exposure times.

 

I think another poster pointed out that most tend to not bother to get the frame exposure time down to at least create some kind of motion blur. It's so easy to have a 1/500 sec shutter to control exposure ! Except when you start to stitch them together there's no motion blur to help the flow of motion.

 

So if it was going to work, I think you'd need to start piling on the ND on your DSLR's.

 

I LOVE doing TX shots with short ends at lunch time or meal breaks. My assistants hate it when i berate them for waisting a precious 20' short end ! Standard daylight filter pack down here is ND 1.2 ND.9 and a pola and still shooting at T11 !

 

I've NEVER used a video split on timelapse. Most of the time you can't see anything because you have to waste so much light level to get it down to the 1/4' exposure time you normally want. The split's just don't work at that light level. It's not going to show you problems that you can't see by just occasionally peeking in the viewfinder. I've rarely had problems. The only time I have is when I've used a camera for TX that I haven't used previously....like the time i discovered that you SHOULD turn off the light meter when using an Aaton 35 (nice red fogging) AND only use the first 200' or the take up will *screw* up on the last 200'. Neither would have been solved by using a video split.

 

Plus it's another cable to trip over and ruin your shot. and another thing to carry. and power.

 

I've done PLENTY of solo timelapse shots with a 35-3 and a norris. Digital just isn't as flexible. Oh, and the poster that says only 100g battery ? What do you do when the battery runs out ? how do you change it without ruining your shot ? You DO need something external...most forget how quickly a DSLR drains the battery when you have the shutter open. In other words, it takes POWER to keep the shutter open.

 

jb

[David Rakoczy]

EXACTLY John... you can't see anything thru the lens (most of the times) anyway! I often run an (85)ND9, ND6 and a POLA all at once... have thrown in the ND 3 (to make it a full house) as well at times. One day soon I'll post pics of a custom Filter Holder I made. It holds 3 4x5s and a 138 Round and hangs on the back of the Capping Shutter. It has made time lapse shooting a joy as it is super easy to change filters (for exposure) or pull the filters altogether (for framing). My wife sewed up a really nice bellows as well. All packed in a Pelican Case. I love my Norris Package :wub:

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I remember seeing some behind the scenes footage from "Star Trek." They were working without video taps at least as of the first season of the show and had to shoot all these extra takes of Leonard Nimoy in a room where they were filling it up with pink gas. They couldn't be certain how the gas would photograph with the lights so they shot a lot of safety to avoid an even-more-costly reshoot.

 

Meanwhile, in "2001" Stanley Kubrick was *already* using a primitive video tap system.

 

jerry lewis is credited as the first person to use video assists.

blake edwards was probably the next to start using them, but i can't recalll what was the first movie of his to use one.

some of the remote control cameras on 'Gran Prix' had video assists.

Kubrick used a polaroid camera for checking lighting on '2001'.

he would have been using video assists for cameras in difficult to access places, not for dialogue or simple shots.

 

From IMDb.com:

Society of Operating Cameramen, (SOC) Honorary Member(1981) Lewis was honored for his contribution and development the first "Video Assist" for the motion picture camera in 1966. This allowed him to view his performance while directing himself in his films. This is used extensively today in filmmaking, known as "Video Village."

 

They were not "taps" back then. They were B/W vidicon cameras mounted on the film camera.

One would have had problems tring to see how pink gas was looking on one.video taps on late 60s filmed TV shows would have been unlikely.

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally the creation of a video tap on the actual camera, rather than side-by-side cameras, is credited to Joe Dunton working for David Samuelson, for "Oliver!" (1968) -- necessary to settle arguments between director Carol Reed and the choreographer (I guess Onna White?)...

[John Brawley]

Generally the creation of a video tap on the actual camera, rather than side-by-side cameras, is credited to Joe Dunton working for David Samuelson, for "Oliver!" (1968) -- necessary to settle arguments between director Carol Reed and the choreographer (I guess Onna White?)...

 

That's a story I also have heard from a guy that was working at Sammies at the time.

 

jb

[David Rakoczy]

And one would think Mr. Reed would have gotten his way despite a Tap... ^_^

[K Borowski]

Kubrick used a polaroid camera for checking lighting on '2001'.

 

You are right Kubrick only used video for very very special shots, mainly the one in the revolving "hamster wheel" of Discovery. But I am not making this up, it was in B&W, and it took several minutes to play back, but it's from one of the books on the making of "2001." I also saw photos of B&W polaroids that he somehow used to analyze color too, so he utilized multiple methods of double-checking during the shoot. If I recall correctly all of the polaroids I saw were of one of the leads in a space suit helmet. What was the lead actor's name, Keir Duleia?

 

If the man took three years to make the movie, he deserved it. Hippie ending aside, Kubrick is the only guy that has gotten realistic space travel right.

 

 

As for "kicking" a tripod, a poor choice on words on my part. I've had a metal tripod slide slightly down the side of a hill on a timelapse, ruining it. Obviously a video tap can't check for film damage, light fog, etc. A before-and-after test would catch that though.

 

Ideally, if you want optimum quality you can shoot bigger formats, like 35mm 8-perf. or 70mm that rival the resolution of 35mm. IDK why resolution arguments constantly factor in with people that advocate digital over film. The cost of film is negligible in time-lapse photography.

 

DSLRs will out-resolve film handily on time-lapse shoots, IF it is 3-perf. but I seem to remember animators using 35mm full-frame film YEARS ago, that would give digital a run for its money, same with 70mm downconverted. They just never bothered when there wasn't a digital alternative.

 

 

Ironic for me to say this, but, film reciprocity becomes a big issue with long exposures too, compared with digital cameras. Noise becomes an issue with digital, but colors and speed don't drift at least.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Stephen Williams]

DSLRs will out-resolve film handily on time-lapse shoots, IF it is 3-perf. but I seem to remember animators using 35mm full-frame film YEARS ago, that would give digital a run for its money, same with 70mm downconverted. They just never bothered when there wasn't a digital alternative..

 

Film kicks ass on a timelapse, something called DR is the key. Nikon still cameras were used in model shoots for Raiders because they were much smaller than the Vista Vision cameras, so they could go places where a bigger camera could not. Possibly they wanted the best so shot film, many people still do.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

If the man took three years to make the movie, he deserved it. Hippie ending aside, Kubrick is the only guy that has gotten realistic space travel right.

 

In 'For All Mankind', one of the Apollo astronauts, in a voice over, says that actually being in space is just like '2001'.

 

& there's that shot where one of the astronauts in zero-g in the command module spins a small black cassette player playing 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' at the camera.

 

Apparently they love the movie.

[Robert Houllahan]

Here is a clip of 35mm timelapse I am working on, I have not done a good job color correcting this yet so it's basically as came out of the 2k scanner...

 

 

 

-Rob-

[Chris Keth]

jerry lewis is credited as the first person to use video assists.

 

That Jerry Lewis?

[Henri Titchen]

I am a big fan of film however this is one application in which digital SLRs IMHO generally win against 35mm film.

 

1) Resolution of the new digital SLRs is incredible, as are ISO ratings! E.g. Variable ISO from 100 to 102,400. (Fewer problems in dim light).

2) No registration issues, image is as steady as the support. No need for pin registered film SLR or modified motion picture camera.

3) No problems with ageing filmstock in the magazine on long takes or in warm conditions

4) Digital SLRs are small and easy to mount.

5) Digital SLRs are cheap compared to many of the alternatives.

 

From my understanding not much stop motion uses film any more. Digital SLRs are more commonly used. This is a similar application to timelapse.

 

Take a look at the wonderful digital SLR results in the following BBC clip (not posted by me).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCyoqaM_4sM

 

Cheers,

H.

 

PS: I have a single frame capable eyemo :-)

 

Would like to ask if anyone has experience comparing the quality of a traditionally done 35mm motion picture timelapse with the timelapse you can now do with many DSLR cameras.

 

The stuff I have seen online that was done with DSLR cameras looks a bit jumpy, flickery, and not as polished.

 

Anyone with experience with both who would like to share, I'd really appreciate it.

 

Thanks,

-Tim

[Patrick Cooper]

Sorry for dragging up an old post.

 

I am a big fan of film however this is one application in which digital SLRs IMHO generally win against 35mm film.

 

1) Resolution of the new digital SLRs is incredible, as are ISO ratings! E.g. Variable ISO from 100 to 102,400. (Fewer problems in dim light).

2) No registration issues, image is as steady as the support. No need for pin registered film SLR or modified motion picture camera.

3) No problems with ageing filmstock in the magazine on long takes or in warm conditions

4) Digital SLRs are small and easy to mount.

5) Digital SLRs are cheap compared to many of the alternatives.

 

 

All valid points but we must also consider the disadvantages of using a DSLR for time lapse.

 

1. Flicker which is caused by the aperture blades not returning to precisely the same position for each exposure. Though this can be remedied by using older lenses with full manual diaphragms (often with adapters.)

2. Flicker caused by the inconsistency of the electronic shutter. Though apparently, this can be fixed by using slower shutter speeds.

3. Limited shutter life. Some peoples' DSLRs have worn out shutters after so many thousands of clicks though others have lasted longer.

4. Data loss!

 

I admit that I am more of a film enthusiast myself and have shot time lapse with film previously but I am attracted to the idea of doing time lapse with digital. Even so, it won't necessarily be more convenient doing this with digital. I feel that with digital still cameras, there's a whole checklist of auto functions that need to be turned off otherwise they'll spoil the time lapse. So probably more time consuming during the set up stage at least.