?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

a new photo project

So, it's about .4 miles from my doorstep to the Porter Square T stop. I am thinking that over the next 365 days I need to take a photo from my eye height along the path I walk to the T stop, at the same time of day each day.

Each photo should be from locations approximately .4 miles / 365 frames = about 5.5 feet apart. I figure it won't be exactly 365 days since I will miss some as I travel or whatever, but over the course of a year I should get the seasons, the change in lighting at that time of day, and all that jazz.

At the end, I'll make a little video out of it. 365 frames, call it 10 frames per second, about 36 seconds of video.

I wonder if "at eye height" is sufficiently consistent to make this not suck. Probably not. Maybe I should get a fixed unipod of some sort that I can use to keep the height extremely consistent.

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
chriswicke
Oct. 31st, 2007 03:49 am (UTC)
Perhaps rather than the exact same time, you should go to the same exact place at reasonably the same time. That way the frames would be consistent, too.
crs
Oct. 31st, 2007 03:52 am (UTC)
Nah, that has been done :) This will be a moving time lapse...
chriswicke
Oct. 31st, 2007 05:41 am (UTC)
ok, now I think I get a better idea of what you're going for. Tell me if I'm wrong...

Day one, you start at your front door. take a picture

Day two, you take a step. take a picture.

Day 365, you take a picture at the Porter Sq. T.

The movie then is a walk through the seasons.
crs
Oct. 31st, 2007 07:50 am (UTC)
Précisement.
awfief
Oct. 31st, 2007 05:00 pm (UTC)
You can test this out by taking a picture at place 1, then taking a picture at place 5, then place 10, all on the same walk. Lower the camera, walk a few steps, then take another picture. It won't be a perfect enactment of what will happen, but you'll get a sense of how crappy something that constantly is moving will be, if it will look crappy.

(or, looking at the comments....what chenoameg said!)
chenoameg
Oct. 31st, 2007 04:03 am (UTC)
I like it.

I recommend that one day this weekend you take a set of pictures one step at a time (on the same day) and see how they work as a video. Then you'll know if you need to be more consistant some how. The unipod should be pretty easy to make if necessary.

I suspect that a step or pace at a time is the easiest way to measure for the walk. (depending on how long your pace is.) Once you start getting well into your walk you might want to make chalk marks to save you from much counting.
crs
Oct. 31st, 2007 04:04 am (UTC)
mm, chalk on ice. :)
chenoameg
Oct. 31st, 2007 04:21 am (UTC)
I believe one uses charcoal on ice.
(Deleted comment)
srakkt
Oct. 31st, 2007 01:03 pm (UTC)
you *may* be able to beat this with algorithms rather than physreps. Take at the widest angle of which your camera is capable, and have software[1] treat it like a video, possibly using optical flow information[2] so that you can then chop out say, forty percent of the stuff you don't want at the edges.

[1] No idea if there's software to do this, but you could do it a frame at a time in the Gimp or something.

[2] Really, when I say no idea, I mean "probably not".
ilai
Oct. 31st, 2007 02:46 pm (UTC)
Ooh, that's a cool idea. Make sure there are no cars around when you're taking a photo from the middle of the street. ;-)
eichin
Nov. 2nd, 2007 02:05 am (UTC)
instead of a bulky monopod that you're stuck with for the rest of the day, consider
* one of those accordian-fold rulers
* a chunk of string with a weight ("a rock to wind a string around" :-) to just hang from the camera, much easier to pocket...
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )