What is a good time increment to setup a time-lapse of guest arriving at a wedding?

Greg, don't create the time lapse in the camera - set up the camera on a firm tripod. Shoot a shot with no-one in then pause the camera until the first people start to arrive. Then let it run until you think you've got enough for the effect to work..

There are two advantages of doing it in post 1) you can't get the timing wrong and 2) you can pace the whole piece to suit. Whatever disadvantages there are to this system, the security of getting a sequence you can use outweighs them in my view.

If I knew how to add clips to this forum I'd slip one in that we did last year exactly this way.

Philip,

If you upload your clip to vimeo, you can just paste the URL.

Greg,

if you want to shoot it with a stills camera (which is a true timelapse), set it up on tripod (wider is better, and you can't really move it after you've started, so pick a good spot), figure out how long it will take them to arrive (say 30 minutes). How long do you want the finished lapse to be. Say 10 seconds. At 30 frames per second - that's 300 frames. So you need 300 frames over 30 minutes. which is 10 frames per minute - so set your timer to take a still every 6 seconds.

I've only shot a couple of TL, but they are kind of addicting. Check out some of Phil Blooms stuff. He also did a funny piece about the addiction to TL.

This was the first one I did - shot over the course of 2 days at a bridal show. It was about 3500 stills.

Pearkes Arena - Timelapse on Vimeo

Ken

Thanks, I had a feeling it was as simple as you describe. Unfortunately I have to go into the archives to find the master but if I hit an unexpected lull I'll do it. By then it won't mean anything to anyone else but I can send it to Greg.

All the best and thanks.

Greg

When you used the term time lapse I didn't connect that with Ken's work. I'll do my best to dig out the piece I want and if it's too late to be relevant here I'll PM it to you.

Philip,

If you ever do find it, I'd be interested in seeing it. I think for a span of 30 minutes or less, sped up video may work better than true TL, though I haven't done it much. Also if you wanted to vary the timing. I've used it where the camera is moving. I just don't like to roll (and then capture) tape for too long of a period from a locked off camera if you're just going to keep every 180th frame or so anyway.

Generally, I've thought that TL doesn't fit the wedding genre so much just because the event (along with all the money that the couple spent) goes by in a flash anyways. The one place I would like to use it would probably be clouds passing by the church steeple kind of shot - or the transtion from day to night

The 2 opening shots of this highlights were shot with a 7D shooting video for about 5 or 10 minutes.
lisa + john /// highlights Memories On Film (http://www.memoriesonfilmblog.co.uk/?p=769)

If you want proper timelapses within a wedding film check out Joe Simons stuff.

Hey andrew,

yes, that's what I had in mind...

Generally, I've thought that TL doesn't fit the wedding genre so much just because the event (along with all the money that the couple spent) goes by in a flash anyways. The one place I would like to use it would probably be clouds passing by the church steeple kind of shot - or the transition from day to night

I think you're right - and for me the scudding clouds and trembling trees are like Swiss wine, first glass is great, but you wouldn't want a whole bottle. (And before I get an irate Swiss flame, that was told to me years ago by a Swiss hotelier!) I feel the same about variable rate movements and focus shift wine glasses and pews, they're like toys people have just discovered. The first use is inspired, the rest copycat.

I must get myself in gear and post this clip because I have a feeling it's not what you and others mean by time lapse although I'd content it meets the technical description.

What is a good time increment to setup a time-lapse of guest arriving at a wedding?

I go with 2 second intervals. Then if I need to speed it up more, I do it in post. The advantage of doing it in camera is that you use a lot less tape/hard drive space than recording realtime.

Thanks everyone for the advice. Yes, Joe Simons stuff is what I had in mind. Don't know how that looks any different than just speeding up video? Maybe less moire and better IQ? Ken, sounds like a simple way to calculate the frames needed.

It looks different when you zoom into the frame. You can zoom into the frame of photos during the timelapse a lot before resolution is less than full HD.