*length=6:29

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:29 - length declared by oritteropo.

I do like this video, but could someone with photography knowledge explain/verify to me that the kind of timelapse he's done is in many scenes impossible to see with the naked eye, or even a time-lapse consisting of (not two images meshed together) long exposure photos, without mixing together multiple pictures, and possibly pictures from different times (day vs night). (I find it impossible to imagine how he shot stars in daytime in between clouds (1:50), or the scene where the stars are visible in broad daylight while the mountain is also visible in daylight).

Hi Osama, i believe those photos were longer exposures, hence the lighting of the clouds and mountains by small amounts of light from either the near-by city or possibly the moon behind the camera. I think many of those shots are possible and only possible with constant long exposure shots put together into a sequence clip. With a good enough camera and lens, these shots can be achieved with 1+ sec exposure time, although with so much detail, I would expect longer exposures whilst the diaphragm can be less open so as to avoid overexposure.

On another note, doesn't the sequence of scenes seem like a modern version of the qatsi series?


>> ^osama1234:

I do like this video, but could someone with photography knowledge explain/verify to me that the kind of timelapse he's done is in many scenes impossible to see with the naked eye, or even a time-lapse consisting of (not two images meshed together) long exposure photos, without mixing together multiple pictures, and possibly pictures from different times (day vs night). (I find it impossible to imagine how he shot stars in daytime in between clouds (1:50), or the scene where the stars are visible in broad daylight while the mountain is also visible in daylight).

Moving this video to mintbbb's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.