Any DSLR with an intervalometer will let you take extremely high resolution time lapse sequences that you may then assemble into videos.
Even the 4.1 megapixel D2H will take higher-than-HD stills that you can then assemble into a time lapse clip. The D7000 will take SIGNIFICANTLY higher-than-HD resolution shots. 1080p is only 1920x1080 pixels resolution (a bit less than 2.1 MP). The D7000 is 16MP!
One thing to remember is to frame your shots loosely on top and bottom if you're cropping to 16x9 ratio.
EDIT: a tethered D40 with free software can also work well for time lapse!
That's great news that it has a build in intervalometer!
By using stills, won't that be a bit unwieldy to make a minute of time lapse?
I'm thinking of twilight city shots showing traffic patterns and sunset glow. Any ideas on exposures -- I'm sure they must be significantly shorter than the 1-to-60 seconds I use for still shots. Is there a cut-off point where the image blur ruins the chance of video, or do moving objects simply turn into a stream of motion?
I suppose no DSLRs have a video mode that allows you to automatically shoot simple 1080p video on time lapse?
Just shoot it at 24p and then accelerate in the editing program. But you can only shoot 20-minute segments at a time.
You'll burn through your shutter if you use stills assembled into video in software, such as Photodex's Producer, unless you're looking to create very short clips. It will take 30 stills to make 1 second of NTSC video, or 24 for the "film look" video.
Using stills is a bit unwieldy, but it yields a higher quality!
Think about it this way: To get the look of 1000% speed playback, I have to shoot 10 times the length of runtime I want, and speed it up 10x in my video editing software (Avid, Final Cut, Premiere, Edius, Vegas, etc)
My D7000 at 720p can shoot 30 frames per second at roughly 20mb per second of data. That's 10 times the frames that I need to record in order to get the look and feel I want to achieve.
My D7000 can shoot 3 frames per second and have the frame-for-frame look and feel that I want at 1000% time lapse @ 720p/30p, but at much much higher resolutions, so that I can pan and scan side to side to simulate buttery smooth fluid pans, or just export a RIDICULOUSLY large, future-format-proof timelapse that would be equivalent to Cineon 4k (4048 pixels wide ultra-HD format) or the resolution of Academy 35mm film.
I'd rather shoot frame for frame and assemble it later than have a 10 minute long video that I'd play back in a minute's time. It'll take about the same amount of data... but much much higher quality!
Here is a link to an awesome timelapse of my homecity - if you are interested I would translate some comments related to production
On interesting detail - shooting in LiveView definitely reduces strain you put on the shutter. Plus you can show the same shot for more than 1/24 or 1/30 of a second.
As far as what shutter speed to use - I would say trial and error would work. Then you can do a nice report for us to see what works best
By using stills, won't that be a bit unwieldy to make a minute of time lapse?
Depends on your software. it is pretty much a snap with either Final Cut or Adobe Premiere.
Gunzorro wrote:
artemk -- Awesome video! Now I want to visit Belarus!
Thanks, I was hoping for that. Some of the discussion there jokingly suggests for government to pay to put this clip on CNN, EuroNews, etc.
Gunzorro wrote:
Carl -- Excellent point about burning out the shutter on the long term.
Use the LiveView - open once, shoot as much as you want - close it. One shutter actuation.
zxzasa -- But isn't that a lot of wasted memory, doing it that way? I suppose then you can make the speed whatever you want by the sampling rate from the frames?
I just bought the Automate bot to do panoramas and time laps with camera motion, again a tethered setup where the external box fires the camera. It can also do HDR time lapse while animating the camera motion
