amazing timelapse

calnand

its just amazing, took him two years to put together... full screen HD is the only way to watch it http://shawnreeder.net/blog.php?bid=219

sh__93

Wow! :eek:

Bumpy McBumperson

DaireQuinlan

why does every. single. timelapse. now have to have those oh so slow pans or tilts ? It's technically accomplished for sure, but I always find myself just middle clicking the tab after about 10 seconds once I hit the second slow dolly up over some foreground rocks with some sunrise-lit mountains in the background...

CabanSail

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

why does every. single. timelapse. now have to have those oh so slow pans or tilts ? It's technically accomplished for sure, but I always find myself just middle clicking the tab after about 10 seconds once I hit the second slow dolly up over some foreground rocks with some sunrise-lit mountains in the background...

I must agree. It is all very clever and beyond what I could produce, but I feel like I have seen it all before too.

magicbastarder

it's a bit chocolate boxy for my liking. and did he really have to use music with pan pipes?

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a bit chocolate boxy for my liking. and did he really have to use music with pan pipes?

Hah, and I was even watching it with the sound turned off. I wouldn't have even lasted that 10 seconds if I'd heard pan-pipes

.Longshanks.

CabanSail wrote: »

I must agree. It is all very clever and beyond what I could produce, but I feel like I have seen it all before too.

Probably because its been posted 3 or 4 times before

humberklog

Christ on a bike that's boring.

Promac

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

why does every. single. timelapse. now have to have those oh so slow pans or tilts ? It's technically accomplished for sure, but I always find myself just middle clicking the tab after about 10 seconds once I hit the second slow dolly up over some foreground rocks with some sunrise-lit mountains in the background...

Not even very technical. There's an auto-pan-thing you can get. You just attach the camera and set a duration and off it goes.

These time-lapses are great if they're used to show something actually changing over time but when it's just for effect, to show clouds and stuff moving then I don't see the point. It was nice enough the first couple of times but it's just boring now. The new HDR I reckon.

Zillah

Promac wrote: »

The new HDR I reckon.

I agree. It has an initial "wow" factor, but people seem to focus on the fancy technical side of it and forget to think about how well their subject suits the format. A huge timelapse of some trees twitching slightly in the wind is not impressive.

trooney

Those places are places of wonder and greatness that lend themselves to still photography so well. Seems like a waste of two years. I really hope the guy took some nice stills too...

PCPhoto

while I agree with everyone else .... timelapses seem to be done to death now and this particular one is like a montage of timelapses.

its a great achievement to do - well done to the guy, but .... I think it just does not inspire me to goto Yosemite - I have been and its fantastic, I would highly recommend it to anyone, but you will not see everything in this timelapse in the short time any normal person would spend there.

(I'm not big into landscapes anyway)

DaireQuinlan

trooney wrote: »

Those places are places of wonder and greatness that lend themselves to still photography so well. Seems like a waste of two years. I really hope the guy took some nice stills too...

to be honest I think I could safely go the rest of my life not seeing any more STILL photography of Yosemite national park as well.

trooney

Well, if you ever get the chance to go, do go. (if you haven't been already). Even if you feel its clichéd to death, if you take photos you will enjoy taking photos in Yosemite. It really is a wonderful place to behold in person and there are many places there which can still give you a view you don't see everybody else taking shots of. As a climber its a place I always wanted to visit. As a photographer I was happy to visit to have my own shots of some of the clichéd views.

BorneTobyWilde

Amazing time video.

pixbyjohn

trooney wrote: »

Those places are places of wonder and greatness that lend themselves to still photography so well. Seems like a waste of two years. I really hope the guy took some nice stills too...

but but.... a timelapse is all stills

just-joe

Its a cool video, as good a timelapse as I have seen.

It is quite repetitive though and is similar to so many other timelapses out there. Two years is a long time to come up with that!

The funny thing is though unless there are clouds racing by or it is at night, then it might as well be normal video instead of a bunch of photos stuck together. There are a lot of clips which look the same as they would in video.

MrJoeSoap

A few thoughts on this one.

1. Very much in agreeance about the pan shots, becomed clichéd now.
2. Music makes such a big difference, and I thought the music was very poor.
3. It's nowhere near as impressive as The Mountain.
4. I've no idea how a video like that could take two years to make. Not doubting the creator's commitment, but I just can't see how. Unless he lived miles away from Yosemite and could only get up there the odd weekend or something. The aforementioned "The Mountain" only took a week to make.