Thanks Alan, I got some of my headlight in the last part of the video. I was afraid to walk out to me camera in the dark. It was much darker than seen in the video. I could have cloned it out on the still before rendering, but forgot to.
Milky way over the Maze
- Thread starter Ben Egbert
- Start date
Mike Lewis
Staff Member
Late to the party on this one . Here are my minor comments on a great effort:
ML
- I do agree that the first one is too dark; it is a fine balance though as I have seen some where they are so light they look unnatural. In my opinion you want to still look like night, but not so dark that you cannot see the lovely landscape at all - otherwise, no point in shooting from such a scenic spot. I think the rework is much better in this regard.
- I agree with Jim, the clouds are kinda cool - something about them moving opposite to the star motion really makes this more dynamic, and the way they part at the end is lovely.
- Both selections of music are nice but I prefer the 1st one - that is very special.
- Taking your 2 hours and diving by 480 I get ~22 seconds per exposures. I would like to see this run smoother, so more images. That would of course mean another kick up in ISO, so perhaps a tradeoff there. But it might work and 10 second exposures would smooth things out. Just a thought. You have more experience with these than I do though so perhaps your choice is the better one.
- My usual music nit - I would like to see the final freeze frame stay on screen a little longer and have the music fade out. Perhaps you could even do a fade transition to your favorite still from the sequence and have that stay on screen for 5 to 10 seconds while you fade the music out? I'm with Jim, these could be longer, but also the ending is lways a little jarring.
ML
Mike thanks for your detailed comments, much appreciated.
The second was a redo and a bit rushed, I should have used the same music and should have cloned out that flash of light. I have been listing the music but did not take the time to do so here.
I am having trouble with the fades. I am still working on how long to show tiles and how much fade to add. Your feedback is very helpful.
The second was a redo and a bit rushed, I should have used the same music and should have cloned out that flash of light. I have been listing the music but did not take the time to do so here.
I am having trouble with the fades. I am still working on how long to show tiles and how much fade to add. Your feedback is very helpful.
Thanks Chuck, much appreciated.
Jim thanks for the feedback and thanks for the help in this. There is a lot of noise in the video at full size. I had better options with the single image using Topaz denoise AI. I think this was the result of boosting it a stop.
The darkness from the clouds at the start made using the histogram problematic, so I winged it based on previous results. Next time I will learn from this effort and make changes.
The darkness from the clouds at the start made using the histogram problematic, so I winged it based on previous results. Next time I will learn from this effort and make changes.
Great thoughts Mike. I agree Ben should add a still image at the end like he has in the beginning. I do that on a lot of mine, it just depends on the end of the video.
One point though I will disagree with and that's the idea of a 10 sec exposure. While it's possible, it isn't realistic and especially for timelapses. a 10 sec exposure would be so far underexposed that the noise would be horrible, even if you boost the ISO you would be talking ISO 6400 or 12,800? The noise would be insane. Now that could be corrected with stacking and median blends if you are processing a single image, but it is impossible to do when doing mass raw conversions for timelapses. The best and consistent advice I give for shooting night skies is to expose properly according to your histogram (1/3rd to just less then half). Shoot with as long of a shutter speed as you can based on the focal length of your lens.
All of my timelapses at night are shot with either a 20 or 25 second shutter speed and look great.
You underexposed this when you shot it, so noise is going to be an issue for sure, But I have played your new video several times now and I don't really notice any noise. One important thing to remember is don't view your video through your still photographer eyes. People are looking at the movement and action in your timelapse, within reason no one is looking and seeing noise. Unless the noise got so bad it looked like old 8 bit graphics, the action and movement will keep the viewer busy and they won't be peeping at pixels.
For sure, you had a lot of clouds to start, so they will darken the sky for you. One thing you will notice is how the clouds are blocking the star light from reaching the ground. Once the clouds open up more, your ground layer also brightens up a bit and shows more detail.
You are on the right track Ben with these. It's a large learning curve to shoot at night, you just have to start exposing properly and not underexposing so much at night and these will be awesome, and easier even for you to process.
Thanks Jim, I had two choice's for more exposure, go to 25 seconds or ISO4000. Which choice would you have made?
Littlefield
Well-Known Member
Nice, Ben. That is over my head. I should start playing with video more.
Don
Don
Kyle Jones
Moderator
I wouldn't be afraid of either ISO 4000 or 25 seconds with the R5 at 14mm. I kind of liked the drama of the first one as the sky emerged through the clouds. Since I'm not the one that has to invest time in it, I'd probably darken the foreground a touch in your rework (which I agree is better overall) and I'd darken the sky even more. The nice thing about random noise in a video is that it evens out without even having to average things.
I'm also interested in your thoughts about using that lens at f/2.4. I usually stop down to f/2.8 to clean up the vignetting in the corners.
I'm also interested in your thoughts about using that lens at f/2.4. I usually stop down to f/2.8 to clean up the vignetting in the corners.
Kyle thanks for your thoughts. I also agree that the sky is too bright in my rework, but I was just following advice. Its a matter of taste.
Funny thing about this lens, if you use Photoshops lens correction, it makes the corners too bright. I just turn it off. In an image like this I don't mind the vignetting. The lens seems sharp enough wide open.
I see noise as a dancing bunch of dots in the brighter areas. Of course I se noise in most high ISO video's I view here.
Funny thing about this lens, if you use Photoshops lens correction, it makes the corners too bright. I just turn it off. In an image like this I don't mind the vignetting. The lens seems sharp enough wide open.
I see noise as a dancing bunch of dots in the brighter areas. Of course I se noise in most high ISO video's I view here.
