Amazing video of abandoned asylum from 35000 stills from 5d Mark II

<p><a href="http://.gizmodo.com/5901060/35000-photos-went-into-this-mesmerizing-insane-asylum-video/">http://.gizmodo.com/5901060/35000-photos-went-into-this-mesmerizing-insane-asylum-video/</a><br>

Beautiful and disturbing - but great work (and a ton of it I am sure)!</p>

<p>Who would want to look at 35,000 stills? edit down? link doesn't work btw...</p>

<p>If you watched the movie, you saw all 35,000.</p>

<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5901060/35000-photos-went-into-this-mesmerizing-insane-asylum-video/">http://gizmodo.com/5901060/35000-photos-went-into-this-mesmerizing-insane-asylum-video/</a></p>

<p>Well, Rob, that might be the case technically but which person (or which photographer since this is PN) would sit thru 35k stills? Not a good way to entice someone to gain hits...Why not just say a video instead of a video with 35k stills? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Probably because it is a specific type of video. The kind that is created by taking 35,000 still photos, individually, and then editing them together to create a movie. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>FWIW it's just a 3:06 video w/ a lousy song...35k stills? ? ?</p>

<p>Well done all the way around.</p>

Damn, that was sweet!

<blockquote>

<p>Asbestos blanketed every room we entered like new winter snow, so shooting was sometimes difficult.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeez! No mention of Hazmat suits and fitted breathing gear worn during the trespass of this building. Obviously a boneheaded move if they knew of (i.e. discovered) the health hazards. <strong><em>:\</em></strong></p>

<p>Great video, however. <em><strong>:)</strong></em></p>

<p>Interesting. But, for me, I don't think the effort required matched the final value. I think a very large percentage of the total "feel" could have been achieved with more traditional filming methods. That having been said, the dedication (and perhaps idiocy re: asbestos) of the creators is impressive.</p>

<p>Josh is just being modest. Damn if I was shooting 35k frames, plus time editing down to make a merely 3 minutes video...It reminds me of my trust fund noise obsessed friends/musicians telling me how much work, effort, and time they put into their "awesome" noise/song production yet I still hear an average noise/song/sounds, no more or no less...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It looks OK. Good eye for light and shadow. But my favorite of these tone-mapped time lapse of old buildings is The Chapel:<br>

<a href="http://vimeo.com/16414140">http://vimeo.com/16414140</a><br>

Really beautifully photographed.</p>

<p>I can honestly say I've seen better, but it's still well beyond my video skill...<br>

the feeling was kind of video gameish though, obviously intentional, but still a bit teenager-ish, like it was an intro to some new horror game. 'Roller skate attack!'</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm guessing they did stills because they wanted resolution beyond HD video, although that was certainly nothing we could see/appreciate. I'm also guessing they did clips just by cranking away on "continuous" mode. I agree with Peter, though. The asbestos would be enough to make me rethink the project. And... I also enjoyed the final product.</p>

<p>That was quite interesting. Thanks for the link.</p>

<p>Looks like it was shot as a video from the start. All the pans and pull-ins and pull-outs are standard video fare and he just elected to take single-shots at some slower rate and then reconstruct them. I think a straight video, using the same lighting, etc. would have had the same impact.</p>

<p>180 seconds by 25 frames per second is 4500 frames in total. So they took nearly 8 stills per frame. For me this looks like overkill.</p>

<p>Namecalling posts deleted.</p>

<p>Try to tone it down folks.</p>

<p>Matthias beat me to it -- 185 secs. at 24 frames/per is 4440 individual images.</p>

<p>From the filmmakers description on Vimeo.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This project is a combination of traditional HDR, tone-mapping, and standard time-lapse techniques. With the use of the Dynamic Perception Stage Zero and a Merlin head, we were able to capture the grit and the grime of this wondrous place, like it had never been captured before. Every single frame in this production is a still photograph, no video was shot. It took nearly 35,000 individual frames over 7 months to complete this project.<br>

http://vimeo.com/40005142</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As you well know, a single HDR image is the result of combining multiple images. Unless you know how many images were combined to create individual HDR frames in the film, there's little point in calculating the number of frames in a 185 second video. </p>

<p>I knew that -- just use 4440 frames as a BASE reference point. There is a lot of good points to a lot of what was said here. I don't sweat it. ;-) An "amazing" video indeed. Excellent.</p>