Wear out a Digital Shutter? w Time-Lapse ?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Doug Bashford, Jun 25, 2011.

  1. 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
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 25, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Doug Bashford

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 25, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 25, 2011
    #3
  4. Doug Bashford

    Alan Browne Guest

    The usual way. Forge ahead until it breaks.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 25, 2011
    #4
  5. 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.
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 25, 2011
    #5
  6. Doug Bashford

    Alan Browne Guest

    That would shutterless.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 25, 2011
    #6
  7. 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.
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 25, 2011
    #7
  8. Doug Bashford

    Alan Browne Guest

    Take it to the CHDK forums - maybe there is a way.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 25, 2011
    #8
  9. Doug Bashford

    RichA Guest

    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.
     
    RichA, Jun 26, 2011
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 26, 2011
    #10
  11. Doug Bashford

    Paul Furman Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 26, 2011
    #11
  12. 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.
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 26, 2011
    #12
  13. Doug Bashford

    bugbear Guest

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

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Jun 27, 2011
    #13
  14. 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.
     
    Doug Bashford, Jun 28, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.