WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Video and Photography (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87667)
-   -   Help taking sequence shots (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=780577)

06-14-2010 12:24 PM

Help taking sequence shots
 
Hey there I have a Olympus E500 and I really want to be able to capture lets say 10 frames in a second so I can make a sequence shot, I am not to SLR savvy but I obviously know how to use it I just dont know what setting or how to make the camera shoot that fast, I know it has the sport mode and stuff to take shots quick but when I do that it takes a shot or 2 every 1 second, Can someone help me through possibly how to set my camera to take shots very fast, I have a high capacity / speed memory card.

http://www.dgrin.com/attachment.php?...1&d=1157570281

Tiffanynfern 06-14-2010 12:29 PM

Sorry but unless you have a higher end camera, your limited to what yours can take which is only 2.5 per sec. if you use the video way, film it then take frames from the video, that works but with very low res.

Tiffanynfern 06-14-2010 12:31 PM

one of the best photoshops i use for sequence shots has been Adobe's CS4 and CS5 (the new one)

06-14-2010 12:31 PM

Is the E500 not a high end camera lol?

06-14-2010 12:32 PM

and I know as far as how to cut and layer and everything for the photo in adobe, I just need the camera to shoot that fast lol

xcharrier 06-15-2010 3:37 PM

You have a decent camera but I wouldnt say its "high-end". If you want a camera that shoots 10+ fps you need the Canon mk3/mk4 (or Nikon equivelent). According to the spec page on your camera it will shoot "approximately 2.5 fps" which is enough to get a decent sequence. The first camera I had was a Canon 10D that shot at 3 fps and I was able to get decent sequences. I personally think 10 fps is too many... I typically shoot around 6 fps.

Did you shoot the photo you posted? Cause that sequence looks good and I would guess that it was shot at about 3 fps.... you have 8 photos there and it probably took 2 or 3 seconds for that trick.

06-16-2010 10:36 AM

Nah that picture there was just there for a reference for everyone its basically exactly what I want as far as speed went, Do you know how to adjust my camera to get that 2.5fps?

wakemania 06-16-2010 12:27 PM

You should be able to just hold down the button to get your continuous shots. Just for reference, the sequence in my profile pic is shot at 3.5 fps.

06-16-2010 12:33 PM

Oh then im not going to get crap with 2.5 lol time to look for a new camera I guess

wakemania 06-16-2010 12:48 PM

I would suggest a minimum of 6.5 fps. I have been looking at the old Canon 40D or newer 50D.

xcharrier 06-16-2010 1:28 PM

I looked up a copy of your manual (the advanced manual)

Advanced Manual

On page 62 it will give you the instructions for setting your camera on sequential shooting. I would shoot on "A" mode (aperture priority) and set the aperture to a low number, 5.6 or faster if your lens will allow. For skate and snow you will be able to get some decent sequence shots at 2.5 fps but wakeboarding moves quite a bit faster so as wakemania mentioned, it would be good to have a camera that will allow you to shoot at 6 fps or faster.

On a side note, looks like we live close... if you ever want to meet up and go over settings just give me a shout.

beretta5spd 06-22-2010 1:13 PM

Just like you, I was trying to figure out action sequences. I did some research this spring and found this youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMzsbB5gqtY

It's using gimp (freeware!!) to do the editing and it's as simple as it gets. Now it gets tricky when in the boat and the camera doesn't stay stationary....in the first two pictures (taken of me) doing a melon 180, and bs 360 the camera followed me through the trick and it took some pretty heavy duty editing. Probably around 1.5 hours per picture. (nothing against the photographer or anything, just took a bit more time). In the last pic when I was taking the picture of the indy bs 180 I kept the camera as still as possible for the burst and the editing took half that amount of time.

Without the use of a tripod you are going to have to do some more editing than the video showed to make all the pictures line up properly, but it can be done.

Here's the pics:

Melon 180 -
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...melon180-2.jpg

BS 360 -
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...lies/bs360.jpg

BS 180 -
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...lonerbs180.jpg

All pics taken with a Rebel T1i and stock lens.

garveyj 06-28-2010 8:43 PM

It actually is not very hard to do sequence shots. Some of them take a while to do...depending on the number of shots, but nowadays I can stitch 12-14 shots together in 20 minutes.

Here is what I do (note I use photoshop):

1. open all of the pictures up that are part of the sequence.
2. Create a new image that is large (usually about 15000 x 5000). Yeah it is large but I cut it down later
3. Copy the first picture and paste it into the new image created above.
4. Copy the next picture and past it as a new layer into the newly created image.
5. Set the opacity of the last picture put into the new image to something around 50%
6. Move the last image into place and line up something that is in the second photo with something in the first one...Like a tree or a dock, boat, etc.
7. Once everything is lined up I erase stuff from the last layer (the one that is faded with the opacity) to uncover the picture from the first image.
8. Once you have erased everything that needs to be erased set the opacity back up to 100%
9. Repeat with all the rest of your images. (Note that you may need to look at your images as you are going through them to clean up any unwanted parts of the images.
10. When you are complete flatten the image by right clicking in the layers area and choose to flatten the image
11. Select the image that you want in your final file and copy it - paste it into a new image and save it.

That is it

06-29-2010 8:44 AM

You guys I know how to do it in photoshop and piece it all together I just needed my camera to be capable to shoot that fast :)

garveyj 06-29-2010 8:42 PM

Sorry Chase - I got that from your first post - I was just replying to a couple of posts there where they were talking about keeping the camera in the same place vs moving it. I was trying to show that you don't have to keep the camera in the same spot.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:44 PM.