shooting a burst of 24 frames on a D200

[John Di Leo]

<p>A close friend is unfortunately preparing to go through chemo and radiation for a cancer that is supposed to be 85-90% curable. <br>

We talked about the "adventure (and the likely misery)" of all of this and discussion arose of doing a timelapse of how his physical appearance will change over the 7 week course of therapy and then over the ensuing recovery. He is in another state and doesn't have a "good camera," but I have an old, but working d200. <br>

My thoughts are to shoot a second's worth of frames every day for 7 weeks of treatment and then 7 weeks after, or however long after. A second of video is 24 frames. That would wind up being about 1minute 38 seconds long for a 14 week shot.<br>

The duration of how long it takes to shoot those daily 24 frames is not particularly critical, but the shorter the better, I suppose, to minimize his movement. The camera will be set up for the duration on a tripod and the lighting will be ambient, but uniform from day to day, as will his position in the frame, planning on a bust shot.<br>

Here's where the question comes: how best for him to trigger the shot?<br>

I can set the intervalometer to shoot 24 frames, but that would involve him going through the menu maybe more than he will feel like doing. It appears that the intervalometer is turned off after every episode unless the camera is left on and the interval triggers every 24 hours. He'll be on battery power. Plus he does not know this camera. I am looking for a way to shoot 24 frames, one right after the other, following a single trip of the shutter with the shutter on a 10 sec delay. And to accomplish this day to day with minimal or no effort other than turning the camera on.<br>

Is there a way to accomplish this?<br>

PS I know this sounds morbid, maybe, but we both agree this is something that will be of major interest to those who care for him and to him. This is quite a journey that he wants to document, though admittedly he may only watch it once, and hopefully on a beach sipping a pina colada in the Bahamas a year from now</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

John</p>

 

[John Di Leo]

<p>Addendum: I do have a wireless remote that would get around the issue and if the advice is use that, then that is fine. Just press it 24 times.<br>

tia</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>I wish your friend well, first of all.<br>

Second, if he is striking a static pose for 24 frames, why not just take one frame each day. When you make the video make each frame's duration one second? Seems simpler, unless you are trying to capture a gesture within those 24 frames each and every time?</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>First, I would go with the remote and just let him click it however many times are needed. Probably easier than trying to figure out a camera he's not familiar with, especially since he won't be feeling well.<br /><br />Second, video runs at 30 fps (29.97 to be exact), not 24 fps. Movie cameras and projectors run at 24. (There are video cameras that can be set at 24 for cases when you are shooting on video but plan to output on film for theater distribution, but that doesn't sound like what you're talking about.) So you need to recalculate the number of frames you need accordingly.<br /><br />Third, if you shoot one second each day, it's not going to all blend together smoothly like a time lapse of a flower blooming. Instead, you're going to get a series of jump cuts as each one-second shot is replaced by the next. The head position isn't going to be perfectly the same in each and the image is on the screen too long for them to smoothly blend together the way it would if it where a single frame of each shot. If it were a flower blooming, I would say shoot one frame each hour. Obviously you don't want to put your friend through that. Maybe the answer is to take the one-second clips, overlap them by half a second and dissolve from one to the next instead of just a straight cut. Might work easier with two-second clips.<br /><br />Best wishes to your friend. My mother has been through three types of cancer and we've lost many friends and family. My suggestions aren't meant to be critical of your proposal, just to help make it work if I can. Good luck.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Surely the D200 has a continuous shooting mode? Then why not just click the remote and hold it down for however long it takes to shoot a minimum of 24 frames? After all, I don't suppose it matters too much whether it's 24 frames or 30 that you capture in a burst. No need for an intervalometer setup or multiple clicks on the remote.</p>

<p>I wish your friend all the best for his treatment and its outcome.</p>

[John Di Leo]

<p>First, thanks for the prompt responses. RJ, I tried that, but the problem is holding the shutter down. There is a burst mode for up to 10 frames. Craig, I thought lightroom could do a 24 framerate, but I accept your correction.<br>

Jim, yours sound like the simplest idea of all. There is morphing software out there that could morph one into the next, but I do not know how much control there is on morphing speed. Still the simplicity of it is appealing, so thanks.</p>

<p>And thanks for the best wishes, much appreciated.<br>

John</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Another option would be to take just one or two frames (for insurance) and use slideshow software to morph the images together. There's free slideshow software like this: http://www.nchsoftware.com/slideshow/<br>

It offers a variety of transition effects, slide timings, etc. and will save the result in a video format and quality of your choosing - AVI, MP4 or DVD standard for example. So I'm not sure why you'd need 24 frames at a time for what is essentially a rostrum camera stills compositing job, since morphing from one frame to another is simply achieved with a cross-fade transition.</p>

<p>I've not played with that software too much, but it appears you can crop and reposition the still images so that a face could be kept in the same position from frame to frame. You just need to leave sufficient space for adjustment around the subject.</p>

<p> </p>

[John Di Leo]

<p>Yes, I've slept on it and the single frame, or two, is what we'll do, following the KISS principle.<br>

Thanks for the link.<br>

Good advice as usual from this fine forum</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I like Rodeo's idea. And if it's a series of still shots dissolving/morphing from one into the next, I would be tempted to leave each one on the screen longer than one second. I might start with the first one on the screen maybe 10 seconds so the viewer gets a moment to absorb what your friend looks like. Subsequent ones could be shorter, but long enough to see "this is what he looked like on day 3, 4, 5" etc. If there are points where there is a more noticeable change in his appearance, maybe linger on that one for a few seconds, then more quickly through ones with less of a change. At the end, hold the final image on the screener longer again like at the beginning. I'm actually starting to have an image of this in my head as a piece of "installation art" in a museum, or maybe on a web site that deal with cancer issues. If it takes a little longer than 1:38 that's OK -- it's a very serious subject and people might want time to reflect. I think you may be onto something here.</p>