following the market research on construction time-lapse cameras and brinno tlc200 pro + eyefi first steps articles, i’m happy to present my very first construction (or rather, destruction) time lapse recorded with the brinno tlc200 pro camera:
below you’ll find the unedited video output, some information regarding image quality, and more.
unedited, out-of-the-camera video:
- as you can see above, the video quality at maximum resolution (720p) is actually quite nice. the camera produced a crisp image and handled the changing lighting conditions (e.g. on partly cloudy days) relatively well.
- the automatic time and date bar at the bottom of the video (if desired/apctivated in options).
- something else that is nice: you can set the camera to “sleep” through nights when the image gets very dark. this not only saves you the hassle of cutting out ~50 useless percent of the video when you can’t see anything, it also enables you to get significantly longer recording times due to saved storage space.
- post-processing: as soon as you stop the recording, you’ve got a working .avi video file to view without special processing.
- the major “technical” problem was the wall mount. as you can see in several instances, the video is slightly shaky – despite the fact that the camera was firmly attached to the wall (via the wall mount) and remained completely untouched. for 25 euros (24 USD), i would expect to get a product sturdy enough for proper time lapse recordings – especially when buying an original brinno accessory!
- post-processing: while it’s nice to get a complete video file directly from the camera, this makes post-processing – if you want/need to do it – more tedious. for example, removing the few “night” frames per day for a more fluid view could be a matter of deleting images within a time-stamp range, as opposed to doing a video cut for every night.
with this specific recording, there were also two logistical problems:
- low video frame rate vs. extremely fast video
i didn’t have access to the camera for a month. so, without a definitive date set for the beginning of demolition, i had to use a relatively big interval of 10 minutes for an interesting timeframe of only about 10 days. this is the reason for the low “detail” frame rate in the second, slowed-down part of the video.
a more optimal interval to better allow viewers to follow the demolition progress would have been 1 minute, for example.
- point of view
the other problem was relatively hard to foresee (or maybe not?). the second container had a lid which opened exactly into the camera’s field of view, thus blocking an interesting part of the scene during 3 days.
altogether, i’m pretty happy with the camera so far, and i’m looking forward to more time lapse videos.