Ken Burns effect in timelapse videos

Ok I move my question here from the "favorite clip" thread:

Those of you who do timelapse videos and pan, tilt or zoom within them, maybe yo want to share your experience and tell us

-how large you shoot the frames
-which programs you use and
-what hardware config. you would consider to be necessary.

Thanks!
Stefan

I have been practicing time lapse and I use the smallest frame size on my still camera 2144 x 1424 I import the jpegs directly into Quicktime Pro. I render as the requirements for uploading HD clips.

I use a Nikon D300 and feel guilty, as this was an expensive camera, time lapse has a way of wearing out camera shutters quickly if you produce a lot of clips. I'm thinking of buying a used Nikon the lowest spec one that has auto time lapse.

Nikon by the way in the D200 and D300 automatically does time lapse.

Norman

I never thought of the toll time lapse shots take on a DSLR's shutter.

And, I hate that moving stills is referred to as the "Ken Burns Effect." I know of producers who moved stills long before Ken Burns. The only thing Ken Burns had going was he had a well-known project that used that method heavily.

It wasn't like he discover a cure for cancer or anything... It's only a moving still...

Thanks Norman! I have a 40D and a TC80 timer so there is no problem with getting the stills. Just the Ken (uugh) thing does not work with my PC.

Odesign: I agree with you on that. When I first read about it in a book I have been kinda surprised that there has actually been an "inventor" of this very basic method. But ok, people often refer to it this way, that´s why I used the term.

Cheers,
Stefan

No offense towards you, just that term in general.

I have an old telescope with motorized drive for tracking stars... I would suppose one could use that as a base and program it to do its slow moving thing with a camera mounted. When I have time I am going to try that. Just for fun. At least then I would have 2 axis movement really slow - and that is basically all that is needed.

Absolutely agreed! The term "Ken Burns effect" is a real misnomer. The technique was used many years before his use of it. That's not meant to take anything away from his usually excellent standards of production and story telling abilities, which I admire.

There are however many true cinematographic pioneers that first used the camera and lens with real innovation and they don't have a technique named after them. Here's hoping the "Ken Burns effect" is banished from the film makers lexicon!

Feels good to rant on occasion..... just for fun!
Cheers everybody!

What is a good, cheap camera to do time lapse with? One with a few manual controls and remote/timer capability.

You can use Adobe OnLocation, which should have come with your Premiere Pro CS3 (assuming you purchased it).

It'll grab a frame at a selected interval of time from any DV source.

I plan on doing a few tests with my XH-A1 when I get some time.

(You did purchase Premiere, right?)

lol just record for 1 minute and speed it up in post, you don't need premier or onlocation. You will be suprised how fast clouds move in 1 minute. Any camera can do time lapse.

I refer to it as the Ken Burns Effect, its like using the word "hitchcock effect." Its not meant to be historically accurate or anything. Some people may interpret "moving stills" to mean morphed stills or a slide show thats why they use the term ken Burns effect. Whats the point in being frustrated over semantics?