Wear out a Digital Shutter? w Time-Lapse ?

I made my first time-lapse attempt with 1,700 640X480 images
using CHDK and my 2009 Canon SX120is 12X. Looking for
freeware to convert them to video I saw a claim that this
will significantly erode the expected shutter life.
Huh?
I thought the sutters were solid state?
He also implied that mechanical shutters would be better
suited.

quoted from a conversation at:
http://www.diyphotography.net/how-to-create-time-lapse-movies-with-lots-of-open-source-software

September 8, 2009

If you're using a digital still camera to capture frames
for time lapse, keep in mind that these things have a much
shorter per-frame lifespan than a traditional video camera.
For example, the Canon xxD-series DSLRs have shutters rated
for about 100,000 frames or less, before you have to send
them in for repair (at your expense). At 25 frames per
second on a time lapse movie, this is just over an hour's
worth of time-lapse output. Looking at it another way, if
you used your Canon 40D to "film" an event that generated a
2-minute time lapse, you just chewed up 3% of your shutter's
lifespan.

I wasn't able to dig up any shutter life data on the
point-and-shoots. I suspect they're probably longer, due to
the simpler mechanical action involved - but they're also
likely not "built as tough" as their DSLR bigger brothers.
...much better idea to shoot the thing in video,
then use your favorite video editor (e.g. Windows Movie
Maker, which is free) to speed the playback up the
appropriate percent.

...If your real-time event is something much longer -
flowers growing, building construction, etc. then obviously
you're in the realm of the traditional camera - in...

=============end quotes

Hogwash or not?
If that's not all hogwash, can these "Canon 40D" "facts" be
generalized to other digital shutters?

Thoughts?

BTW, any experienced observations or suggestions for
*freeware* to convert pics to video? I see no rave reviews
in this regard. ...no reviews at all from the usual DL
sites.
--Doug

 

No. Mechanical. But a lot simpler than on a SLR so I'd expect it to
last for more cycles - but not forever.

I'd think you'd be better off with a cine camera - even to do time lapse.

 

Rats! Well if I only get 100K pictures, that does
change my plans. If I got 300k, not so much.
I wonder how I find out?

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

The usual way. Forge ahead until it breaks.

 

Alan Browne wrote:

Seems odd.
That camera takes 30fps 640x480 AVI videos.
That's 108,000 pics/hour. So waz up with that!?
It uses no shutter?




The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

That would shutterless.

 

Alan Browne wrote:

I don't know how that works.
Damnit! Knowledge of ignorance I find so distracting!

Just thinking aloud...How cool it would be if
CHDK (or Canon) could somehow slow that 30 fps
to around 1 fps! ...just dial in the desired fps!

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

Take it to the CHDK forums - maybe there is a way.

 

People serious about variable-shutter rate video (which is what this
is) should consider buying cameras dedicated to the task, if they can
afford them. But, you could probably decimated 50 crappy Canon P&S's
and not be at the price level of a video camera capable of what you
want.

 

Re: Wear out a Digital Shutter? w Time-Lapse ?;

You woke up with a turd in your mouth?



The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

25 fps isn't time lapse, more like 1 fps, or even 5 seconds per frame.

I've worn out a couple DSLRs doing time lapse. It might be nice to have
a P&S for some situations but the DSLRs are handy for night shooting,
especially star trails where exposures are longer than the interval you
want without high ISO, and for extra wide angle, DOF perhaps, also you
have more latitude for adjusting exposure in changing light.

VirtualDub works very fast with lots of options for assembling into avi,
then you'll probably want something else to edit with. Note that the
frames need to be perfectly sequential, no gaps. It's a little geeky to
learn but works great.

 

Re: Wear out a Digital Shutter? w Time-Lapse ?;

Yeah. I prefer a bit faster and longer than most. For
example, I don't want cumulus clouds to look like jerky
steam, but more like slow living things. Sadly even with
the continuous mode "fast" script my slow camera barely
exceeds 1 fps. ...so far -- I may learn more.
The one I shot was an unwilting Greek basil every 2 seconds.

Most of my life I carried around a wooden box for my
manual Nikon F & lenses. After 10 years with a digital
point-and-shoot, and now my "prosumer," I have utterly
no desire left for something that won't fit in my pocket.
Now I understand how the burn-the-bra gals felt "liberated."

I was looking forward to exploring time-lapse until I
discovered the shutter might only be rated for 100K.
Now I'm re-evaluating. I'm thinking I'll keep the
software for special occasions like rare mountain cloud
shoots, perhaps kids unwrapping Christmas. Who knows?
I'm re-evaluating.

Way cool! One of the few times I ran out of film
was looking down on a Golden Gate sunset with fog
after a sunny mountaintop drive-picnic from Santa Cruz.
I missed most of it. Spectacular! Coletrane!
Perfect!

OK, no gaps in the filename numbering.

BINGO! That's exactly what I was looking for.
Thanks! Do you know a good freeware video editor?
I guess that will be my next step.

Somewhere I have a video converter, but it has no
"convert at similar quality" button, and not having
a real video recorder I wasn't in the mood to learn all
those terms and concepts.
Worked fine at default, but an uncontrolable black box,
and i wanted smaller files sometimes. So I stopped
using it. I think it might be a GP codec interface.
--Doug



The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

As long as you're got exposure and focus locked,
you should be able to go way faster than that.

BugBear

 

Re: Wear out a Digital Shutter? w Time-Lapse ?;

I think the "fast" continuous mode script does
lock them.

Thanks for your input! I haven't figured out how
to get faster.
The sx120's main weakness (in many reviews) is
terrible cycle time, particularly shutter lag.
(And full-flash cycle is around 7 secs....
but that be one bright puppy!)

In non-scripted Manual mode, continuous,
the fastest I can get is 7 per 5 secs,
but at more typical settings it's
6 shots per 5 seconds. I got a huge speedup moving
from ISO 400 to 200, but all other settings so far
have only minor effects. That all assumes
apeture wide open and shutter up to 1/500.
Picture size has minor if any effect. Slow shutter
speeds, say around 1/30 may have significant
effects.

The "Ultimate Intervalometer" script which focuses
and exposes before each shot seems to have a max
speed indoors-bright-window near 0.5 fps. ...With big
slowdowns if I step in front of the window's light.
Prolly was in Auto mode.

Thoughts?

BTW,
I'm gunna attempt to modify the (focus-at-
start-only) continuous mode "fast" script
to focus again after 10 shots and every
50 (selectable) shots after that. I'll
keep it if it doesn't noticeably slow
things up. It's too risky to bet 1,700
shots and hours exclusively on the first
shot.




The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.