Still vs Video - time-lapse

Still vs Video - time-lapse

Contrary to popular belief, time-lapse is actually captured with still cameras rather than video cameras.

Even though time-lapse and standard live-action video recording are different techniques, the basic principal is the same. Video is merely a series of still images run at a particular frame rate, which deceives our brains into thinking we are watching continuous movement.

In the case of video cameras for live-action, we shoot mainly at 25 frames per second (fps), whereas time-lapse can be shot at anywhere between 1 fps and 1 frame per hour (for most of our projects, anyway). The individual images are then compiled into a sequence, which is again run at 25 fps, to create what looks like a sped up video.

Why don't we just use video cameras to do time-lapse then? Well, imagine having to record months or years worth of video footage at 25fps…the storage would be off the scale (essentially impractical). This, combined with the fact that capturing individual photos at far greater intervals allows for the quality of each image to be much higher, makes the use of still cameras rather than video ones a far better option.

The following piece, that we created for Network Rail a few years ago, combines a bit of both, which often works well and doesn't look jarring when cutting between the two:

https://vimeo.com/282117806