>try to take a timelapse of a city skyline during sunset into night>exposure doesn't change to compensate the darkening of sceneWhat the fuck? How difficult is it for this dumb ass camera to automatically adjust the exposure like it normally does when taking photos or video?
Why would you expect a camera to change setting mid-exposure?
>>3492285Even my OM-2 can adjust mid-exposure
were you in manual or aperture/shutter priority?
it's cold holy grail effect, some apps take this into account, others doens't you can post process this with different free software I don't have, cause I have a sony with the timelapse app which costed me $10
>>3492285He said time-lapse, not long exposure.OP, the answer is obvious but I want to see how many Anons it requires. 6 posters and no answer yet, let's see how retarded we can get in here.
>>3492315he didn't take earth's rotation into account?
>>3492252Usually I just set it to Av mode on my Canon, which will adjust the exposure for every picture. Only bad part about Av mode is that since every picture is individually measured for exposure at the start of the exposure, it lends itself to slight amounts of flicker when played back at 24fps. I also use an external automatic clicker.
>>3492252You sure didn't do something retarded like setting an interval shorter than the exposure time required as the the scene changes, right anon?
>>3492315I can't understand why anyone would want a time lapse to auto expose individual frames. It'd look like those dodgy corporate construction video time lapses taken over months.Surely the best option would be to expose for a "predicted" dusk and have the beginning over exposed and the end under exposed. Long exposures would even out variations and make a smoother video.I don't do video but I do think about it.
>>3492493Depends on what you want. If you are ok with having it over exposed (to the point of just being a white image) at the start, then that's perfectly fine. If you are ok with it turning white at sunrise, then that's fine. But if that's not ok, then you have to do auto exposure.
>>3492502>then you have to do auto exposureB.. b..but then your video will look like shit. Am I missing something here?Video that's white at the beginning and black at the end (with street lights) sounds good to me.With an intervelometer on a long shutter speed a cloud could fuck up your exposure once the shutter has been fired.I have no vested interest, just curious
>>3492516>With an intervelometer on a long shutter speed a cloud could fuck up your exposure once the shutter has been fired.Certainly could fuck up a single image, which can then be corrected in Lightroom. Certainly helps if you shoot in RAW single images, instead of JPEG or straight up H.264 video. The problems that come with auto exposure is the price you pay for getting great day/night transitions. I've had lightning bugs, rolling fog, moon light bouncing in my lens weird, sunlight coming in my viewfinder, clouds, etc, all fuck me over on auto exposure during some frames. But it's usually correctable. And for smaller flickering there are specialty timelapse plugins and programs for reducing problems that come with auto exposure. If you don't want to capture day to night transitions, then I would fully recommend staying away from auto exposure.
>>3492540You didnt even correct the vignetting
>>3492672Now imagine, there are people who even add atrificial vignetting (around subjects)
>>3492672What part of "Unprocessed" in the file name don't you understand. Nothing has been correct or changed from the original RAWs.
speaking of timelapses - is it safer to keep taking pictures and fuck up the shutter, or take a video at 0.5fps and keep shining light at the sensor during recording?
>>3492754It doesn't hurt the sensor to keep it open, just as matter of if doing that can give you what you want.
>>3492292This^I did a time lapse of the sunset and had my aperture set (f/14 I believe) and had it on aperture priority. I didn’t know cameras will adjust to exposure automatically unless set on one of those two settings.