3 ms·
>In layman’s terms… he used a camera. Not a camcorder. A DSLR camera. And he put each individual picture together on a computer to make it into a video. That's
by theon144 13y ago
>In layman’s terms… he used a camera. Not a camcorder. A DSLR camera. And he put each individual picture together on a computer to make it into a video.
That's... exactly how time-lapses are usually done. Not sure where the amazement comes from exactly.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoSo what he gets is closer to what you would get with real cinematography gear than you do with even pro-sumer type camcorders which code to a particular video format. Unlike others I'm not raging anti-HDR, my eyes tend to see in HDR and so these images can look more "real" to me than images which have more limited dynamic range. I do however really dislike the motion compensation TVs that make movies look like video. That suggests making an impressionist painting look like a polaroid is a "good" thing when part of the art is the look. Why I don't get the same negativity about HDR I don't know.