Tim Sewell Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 I just found this on the blog of Kevin Mullins, an official Fuji X Photographer. It's 1000still frames shot on his son's birthday. I guess you'd call it a time lapse, but it's nothing of a kind that I've seen before. http://f16.click/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Well, I used the same technique in the past with the A7s: If you want to make video in this style, you need two things: (a) a tripod (since camera stability becomes much more an issue with low frame rates) (b) a camera with an electronic shutter (since a mechanic shutter will die after about 100,000 clicks - which would be only 69 minutes of video). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sewell Posted August 1, 2017 Author Share Posted August 1, 2017 Excellent! I'm going to have to try this - would one use a burst shooting mode, or just manually click quickly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said: Excellent! I'm going to have to try this - would one use a burst shooting mode, or just manually click quickly? Burst shooting mode. (But as said, only do this if your camera has an electronic/silent shutter.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoScoops Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Yeah, it's just burst shooting mode. I've thought of using the GH4 like this for cinemagraphs with raw 12fps, then twixtoring the moving part to 24fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, TwoScoops said: I've thought of using the GH4 like this for cinemagraphs with raw 12fps, then twixtoring the moving part to 24fps. My experience with making cinemagraphs and animated GIFs is that Twixtor / slow-motion via optical flow algorithms reduces detail resolution too much for high-resolution stills. But 12fps is more than enough for cinemagraphs. Made this "GIF documentary" (from BMPPC raw footage) with much lower frame rates:http://cramer.pleintekst.nl/deplayer-impro-snodge/ (You can also download the above as a single, 90MB HTML file: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl/deplayer-impro-snodge/download.html) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoScoops Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, cantsin said: My experience with making cinemagraphs and animated GIFs is that Twixtor / slow-motion via optical flow algorithms reduces detail resolution too much for high-resolution stills. But 12fps is more than enough for cinemagraphs. Made this "GIF documentary" (from BMPPC raw footage) with much lower frame rates:http://cramer.pleintekst.nl/deplayer-impro-snodge/ (You can also download the above as a single, 90MB HTML file: http://cramer.pleintekst.nl/deplayer-impro-snodge/download.html) Those look good. I suppose with the cinemagraph I was thinking most of the frame would be still then a bit of hair on a model or something would be the only thing moving, such a tiny part of the frame the detail issue wouldn't be a huge worry, but yeah I can see 12fps would be enough for cinemagraphs without the need for twixtoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Sweeney Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I shot this a few years ago now - and this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Dick Sweeney said: I shot this a few years ago now - and this one... Is Sliver Lion a new category at Cannes or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sewell Posted August 3, 2017 Author Share Posted August 3, 2017 Google is your friend: https://www.canneslions.com/ Dick Sweeney 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 3, 2017 Administrators Share Posted August 3, 2017 So about the workflow... If you wanted to shoot RAW, you would then convert to DNG and import the folder to Resolve... Anyone got a different plan? Dick Sweeney 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Sweeney Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I shot as jpeg and even then it killed a mac and my camera - 55000 frames all up. We edited through bridge in terms of what was needed to fit the shot list - and then looked at the sequence and then stripped out frames to make the cut and paste effect more pronounced ( so to speak ). Actually as I progressed through the campaign of x3 I became more cinematic - by default - but it wasnt porbably what they needed - so we had to strip it down even more to make it more random......the finally cut was passed onto a pro. Tim Sewell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sewell Posted August 4, 2017 Author Share Posted August 4, 2017 Quote So about the workflow... If you wanted to shoot RAW, you would then convert to DNG and import the folder to Resolve... THe guy who did the one I posted used SOOC JPGs. But, y'know, Fuji.... Dick Sweeney 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said: So about the workflow... If you wanted to shoot RAW, you would then convert to DNG and import the folder to Resolve... Anyone got a different plan? Resolve doesn't swallow all DNG files (even if you use Adobe DNG Converter at lowest compatibility settings). For example, DNGs created from Sony ARWs only work in newer versions of Resolve. The alternative route is to use a raw converter (Lightroom or better even Raw Therapee) to render 16bit TIFFs with as little processing as possible and the most neutral settings available and import these as sequences into Resolve (or Premiere). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 Yup. It's a fun technique: http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=162950 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 On 8/1/2017 at 11:51 AM, cantsin said: If you want to make video in this style, you need two things: (a) a tripod (since camera stability becomes much more an issue with low frame rates) (b) a camera with an electronic shutter (since a mechanic shutter will die after about 100,000 clicks - which would be only 69 minutes of video). I like what you're doing here. Looks good. There's an alternative method to creating the same technique that I've employed in the past (used it on a low budget CBS promo I made a decade ago) Basically I wanted to create the look of sequential time-lapse but shooting with a video camera. (all I had at the time) So, I shot scenes wherein I had the subject(s) stand still in the middle of San Fransisco and I would then slowly walk toward them, around them, behind them, etc. People would swirl around 'em and sometimes I'd shoot through traffic, etc. At the end of a single shot I would have about 30 seconds of video. I took that 30 seconds, sped it up in post so it lasted 3 seconds...and *this is the important part* applied a 6 frame strobe effect to the clip. Viola': it looked like image sequence time-lapse. Which, when you think about it, is exactly what it is anyway. *note: to really heighten the look, I shot with a very slow shutter. 1/3, I think. Anyway, that adds a lot of cool motion blur, enhancing the "looks like a photo" effect. So, with any footage you can adjust the speed, (ramping up footage makes it look more like time lapse) add a strobe effect filter to hold frames on screen for however long you prefer, and there you go. Play around with it. It's easy and it works. No need to torture your stills camera. Just shoot and then build it easily in post. BTW, the CBS promo spot was pretty lame to be honest, but figuring out a new process to emulate time lapse was fun. Dick Sweeney 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Sweeney Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 "no need to torture your stills camera" - if only i would have known ! So what your saying is that the strobe effect - only showed every sixth frame ? Was it super clean and regimented - or did it have an organic "hand made" vibe ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I did everything handheld, but you could do it off the tripod of course, depends what you're going for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 On 8/1/2017 at 2:34 AM, Tim Sewell said: I just found this on the blog of Kevin Mullins, an official Fuji X Photographer. It's 1000still frames shot on his son's birthday. I guess you'd call it a time lapse, but it's nothing of a kind that I've seen before. http://f16.click/ Damn....is it just me or are the colors absolutely stunning in this? I really dig the look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Dick Sweeneys two films have a different effect (in whole) as cantsins and Kevin Mullins'. They look like very short, fast cuts. The other clips more have a flip-book/ULFR (ultra low frame rate) approach. There is a magic in seeing time chopped to it's key phases. As a 6-year-old, I received a Christmas present from my parents, which, unbeknownst to them, became my Rosebud: I was obsessed with cranking the speed. Later my father bought me a used Super 8 camera with single frame mode, and I made stop motion films with plasticine dinosaurs in my big brother's model train towns. In connection with the Hobbit-HFR-discussion, I exported the LOTR prologue in 12 fps, here, to demonstrate the opposite effect. I wouldn't like to watch a three hour movie that way myself, but I think this belongs into a filmmakers toolbox and should be used if appropriate. Surely it can be achieved with different methods (with slightly different effect then), and one should experiment with different shutter speeds also. The opposite would be a clip at at least 30fps (clarity), very high resolution and extreme slow motion. Time almost frozen, a living painting. That's what comes to my mind when I read "cinemagraph" (TwoScoops). Now if you imagine a short film as a slide show of those cinemagraphs, the effect could be mesmerizing (given, of course, it's not about flowers and cats). kaylee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.