WaterFall TimeLapse - ND1000 - Let me Know thoughts

[Howard70]

I agree with Dale D. I found the jittery nature of the waterfall entering the pool below distracting. The composition and subject were great, but for me a still image with a long shutter speed to soften the flow would be something I'd return to view repeatedly.

Howard

 

[howard.allum]

Personally I think a timelapse of a waterfall is the wrong thing to do. The columns of water look jerky and not at all natural. The exposure, white balance etc is not really relevant if the shot is ill conceived in the first place.
You would have produced a more pleasing shot if you had used a slowish shutter speed and used your ND filters to achieve the correct exposure so that the water was a little blurred. More natural looking I think…

 

[Robert Prior]

What value do you recommend for WB?

I get decent results with 5700.

For a timelapse I would set everything manually. You will still get some flicker, but much less than relying on auto. At least, that's been my experience with DSLRs. And definitely don't leave white balance on auto unless you're looking for funky colour shifts!

Neat idea, I'll have to try it. Just need to find a decent waterfall I can fly near…

 

[jephoto]

White balance was auto because I had iso and shutter manually set.

Why couldn’t you have the WB also on manual/custom? I never have my white balance on auto no matter what other mode I’m using for exposure.

 

[Suren]

Personally, I think a single frame still shot properly edited would have been better. I am figuring that for a 25 second video, at 24 frames a second, x 25 seconds, = 600 frames. I divided this by 60 and got 10 minutes, which is the time the one needed to be in the air at an interval of 3 seconds. What was your exposure setting? Here is a single edit using the masking tool and the falls as the subject. I could not bring out any details in the water.
Dale
View attachment 164810

I did some long exposure photos with the Original Mavic 3 and ND2000 and they looked great, this was more to test the 3X Lens on a TimeLapse

 

[Suren]

I agree with Dale D. I found the jittery nature of the waterfall entering the pool below distracting. The composition and subject were great, but for me a still image with a long shutter speed to soften the flow would be something I'd return to view repeatedly.

Howard

It can be but was more of what the new ens could do and with my new filters, I had to give this a try.

 

[Suren]

Personally I think a timelapse of a waterfall is the wrong thing to do. The columns of water look jerky and not at all natural. The exposure, white balance etc is not really relevant if the shot is ill conceived in the first place.
You would have produced a more pleasing shot if you had used a slowish shutter speed and used your ND filters to achieve the correct exposure so that the water was a little blurred. More natural looking I think…

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Suren]

Why couldn’t you have the WB also on manual/custom? I never have my white balance on auto no matter what other mode I’m using for exposure.

Im not much of a person that makes lots of videos and photos but just fly and film for fun with no knowledge of editing.

 

[Meta4]

let me know your thoughts

I agree with Dale on this.
The silky slow exposure waterfall would look much better as a single still image rather than as a jerky hyperlapse.
Look for a different subject for that technique.

 

[Suren]

I agree with Dale on this.
The silky slow exposure waterfall would look much better as a single still image rather than as a jerky hyperlapse.
Look for a different subject for that technique.

Thanks mate, just testing around the new filters and lenses

 

[Robert Prior]

I'm going to go against the grain and say that I thought it was a neat idea — kinda like timelapse videos of a busy intersection that show the ebb and flow of people.

This video showed that what looks like a smooth flow in a single image still has a lot of variation. It might be better if the transitions between frames was smoother somehow, but it's a neat idea and as you say this was a first try.

 

[Meta4]

This video showed that what looks like a smooth flow in a single image still has a lot of variation.

More likely was that it looked jerky because the drone was moving around between shots and the water fall was relatively close.
With a more distant subject, small drone movements wouldn't be noticed.

 

[Robert Prior]

More likely was that it looked jerky because the drone was moving around between shots and the water fall was relatively close.

The rocks look stationary, so I don't think the drone is moving much.

Watch the foot of the falls. What's happening is that the streams of water are moving around. That's what I find interesting, because I wonder if that would be evident in a non-timelapse.

That's why I like timelapses: they reveal patterns of change that I wouldn't see normally.

 

[Suren]

More likely was that it looked jerky because the drone was moving around between shots and the water fall was relatively close.
With a more distant subject, small drone movements wouldn't be noticed.

Drone was 103 meters above the falls.

 

[Suren]

I'm going to go against the grain and say that I thought it was a neat idea — kinda like timelapse videos of a busy intersection that show the ebb and flow of people.

This video showed that what looks like a smooth flow in a single image still has a lot of variation. It might be better if the transitions between frames was smoother somehow, but it's a neat idea and as you say this was a first try.

Thanks, The Mavic Pro is making me to want to learn to shoot different things. Still learning