Time Lapse versus Interval Timer Shooting
It looks to me like the only difference between these two options is that the time lapse feature creates a video in-camera and interval timer shooting requires external software to combine images. Am I correct?
I also see that time lapse is limited to a maximum of 20 mins recording time.
On a side note, I ran into fellow shooting a time lapse with a new D4 and he found he had to shoot jpegs because the camera buffer would fill up after a few minutes shooting in RAW. He was using the new XQD card in his D4.
Please visit my Website
#1. "RE: Time Lapse versus Interval Timer Shooting" | In response to Reply # 0Antero52 Nikonian since 07th Jul 2009Mon 07-May-12 06:51 AM
> ”It looks to me like the only difference between these two options is that the time lapse feature creates a video in-camera and interval timer shooting requires external software to combine images. Am I correct?”
This is how I understand the two interval functions. If I re-translate the Finnish menu options back to English, they are “timed shots (photo)” and “timed shots (movie)”.
While it is clear that the time lapse feature (for movies) is for movies, it may not be equally clear that the interval timer shooting has purposes other than movies. A typical use for an interval series is combining the best parts of individual images into a single composite image. For instance, you may want to shoot a busy place without showing all the people, you can take as many as a hundred individual shots, load them into a layer stack in Photoshop and find the median of all pixels (or use manual layer masking, as I do, because the median feature is only available in the extended version of Photoshop). Or, you may shoot several images of fireworks and combine the brightest pixels of each.
Best regards, Antero