«

Does anyone know if the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Controller when used with a
5D would allow one to take multiple exposures on a single frame? Like, an
image of the moon taken every hour, all on the same image? I've read on the
canon page for this product but cannot disambiguate the terminology.
Thanks

In article <>, paro wrote:

> Does anyone know if the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Controller when used with
> a
> 5D would allow one to take multiple exposures on a single frame? Like, an
> image of the moon taken every hour, all on the same image? I've read on the
> canon page for this product but cannot disambiguate the terminology.
> Thanks

It trips the shutter just as if you had pressed the shutter button
yourself, including autofocusing if the camera is set to it, with a
self-timer up to 99:59:59 delay before the first shot, intervals up to
99:59:59 between each shot, exposures up to 99:59:59 in length each,
and up to 99 exposures per iteration.

So unless the 5D allows multiple exposures (I don't think it does),
then it won't work. Of course, if it DOES allow them, then it will.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

On 04/04/2007 Ken Lucke <> wrote:
>In article <>, paro wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Controller when used with
>> a
>> 5D would allow one to take multiple exposures on a single frame? Like, an
>> image of the moon taken every hour, all on the same image? I've read on
the
>> canon page for this product but cannot disambiguate the terminology.
>> Thanks
>
>It trips the shutter just as if you had pressed the shutter button
>yourself, including autofocusing if the camera is set to it, with a
>self-timer up to 99:59:59 delay before the first shot, intervals up to
>99:59:59 between each shot, exposures up to 99:59:59 in length each,
>and up to 99 exposures per iteration.
>
>So unless the 5D allows multiple exposures (I don't think it does),
>then it won't work. Of course, if it DOES allow them, then it will.
>

OK, thanks for that response...anyone with good working knowledge of the 5D
who can tell me if it's going to be possible?

paro writes:

> Does anyone know if the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Controller when
> used with a 5D would allow one to take multiple exposures on a single
> frame?

Why would you want to do that, versus post-processing?

On 04/04/2007 Richard J Kinch <> wrote:
>paro writes:
>
>> Does anyone know if the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Controller when
>> used with a 5D would allow one to take multiple exposures on a single
>> frame?
>
>Why would you want to do that, versus post-processing?

I'm not sure what you mean by post processing. You mean digitally blend
images? I've just never done that, though I have photoshop. I am coming from
fairly in depth film camera experience, but a long time ago...at that time an
image like I posited was doable depending on the camera one had. I'd expect an
advanced camera like the 5d to offer such but someone that is more on the
nikon side of things said something to the effect that this feature is present
on most nikons (or some, I don't know) but not the 5d. I'd not be averse to
doing things the digital way, but would also like to know what the camera +
controllers can do before photoshop etc get involved.

On Apr 5, 2:58 am, "paro" <paro> wrote:
> I'd not be averse to
> doing things the digital way, but would also like to know what the camera +
> controllers can do before photoshop etc get involved.

Not a problem with the 20D:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64251969

I don't believe that the 5D has the function you seek. Probably just
as well since a true double-exposure doesn't look as good as one done
digitally.
For example, if there was a bright star or planet near the moon it
could appear right inside the moon on the next shot in the sequence.

On 05/04/2007 "Annika1980" <> wrote:
>On Apr 5, 2:58 am, "paro" <paro> wrote:
>> I'd not be averse to
>> doing things the digital way, but would also like to know what the camera +
>> controllers can do before photoshop etc get involved.
>
>Not a problem with the 20D:
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64251969
>
>I don't believe that the 5D has the function you seek. Probably just
>as well since a true double-exposure doesn't look as good as one done
>digitally.
>For example, if there was a bright star or planet near the moon it
>could appear right inside the moon on the next shot in the sequence.
>

It might be that you are not that well attuned to astronomy, the moon and the
stars move almost at the same rate in the night sky, so you'd not likely see
them cross paths in a photo <g>. But anyways, I'm not sure why digitally
merging several images wouldn't create the same potential issue?

But the photo of the pitcher made me wonder, with a multiple exposure like
that, there would seem to be issues with lighting. I mean, the pitcher himself
in each exposure reflects the light for a single exposure; but the anything
static in the image (background, pitcher's mound) would have four exposure's
worth of light built up. Not apparent in that image though. And how do you
know that Bret is using a 20D and that that image is a multiple exposure? I
couldn't find anything on the site.

On 05/04/2007 "paro" <paro> wrote:
>On 05/04/2007 "Annika1980" <> wrote:
>>On Apr 5, 2:58 am, "paro" <paro> wrote:
>>> I'd not be averse to
>>> doing things the digital way, but would also like to know what the camera +
>>> controllers can do before photoshop etc get involved.
>>
>>Not a problem with the 20D:
>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64251969
>>
>>I don't believe that the 5D has the function you seek. Probably just
>>as well since a true double-exposure doesn't look as good as one done
>>digitally.
>>For example, if there was a bright star or planet near the moon it
>>could appear right inside the moon on the next shot in the sequence.
>>
>
I've not done the post processing that would make this kind of multiple
exposure effect, but I think I can see what you meant by saying that with the
digital approach, one could avoid image overlap issues. I guess one can
somehow select the target object and have it render in a completely opaque
manner, so no overlapping. The pitcher image shows no overlapping at all...but
you said it was not done digitally?

paro wrote:
> On 05/04/2007 "Annika1980" <> wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 2:58 am, "paro" <paro> wrote:
>>> I'd not be averse to
>>> doing things the digital way, but would also like to know what the
>>> camera + controllers can do before photoshop etc get involved.
>>
>> Not a problem with the 20D:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64251969
>>
>> I don't believe that the 5D has the function you seek. Probably just
>> as well since a true double-exposure doesn't look as good as one done
>> digitally.
>> For example, if there was a bright star or planet near the moon it
>> could appear right inside the moon on the next shot in the sequence.
>>
>
> It might be that you are not that well attuned to astronomy, the moon
> and the stars move almost at the same rate in the night sky, so you'd
> not likely see them cross paths in a photo <g>. But anyways, I'm not
> sure why digitally merging several images wouldn't create the same
> potential issue?

In astrophography with a clock drive this is not an issue. In
photography with the camera in a fixed orientation all astronomical
bodies will move between exposures. If you're doing multiple exposures
on the same frame then the risk described does occur and further if the
exposure is long enough to show stars then you're going to see multiple
sky images slightly displaced. Editing this out of a single-frame
multiple exposure would be a pain in the butt, doing it from multiple
frames you can just block the sky out on all but one.

> But the photo of the pitcher made me wonder, with a multiple exposure
> like that, there would seem to be issues with lighting. I mean, the
> pitcher himself in each exposure reflects the light for a single
> exposure; but the anything static in the image (background, pitcher's
> mound) would have four exposure's worth of light built up. Not
> apparent in that image though. And how do you know that Bret is using
> a 20D and that that image is a multiple exposure? I couldn't find
> anything on the site.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Apr 5, 9:54 am, "paro" <paro> wrote:
> >Not a problem with the 20D:
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64251969

> It might be that you are not that well attuned to astronomy, the moon and the
> stars move almost at the same rate in the night sky, so you'd not likely see
> them cross paths in a photo <g>.

No ****, Sagan.
I'm attuned enough to know that if you took photo #1 with the moon and
the star in their respective positions, and then later took photo #2
after both of them have moved, there is a chance that the moon in the
second photo will occupy the same spot as the star in the first. So
doing a double-exposure will show the two moons, the second of which
has a star inside it.
Compositing the photos digitally gives a better result since you would
avoid the "ghosting" that occurs with traditional multiple-exposures.

>
> But the photo of the pitcher made me wonder, with a multiple exposure like
> that, there would seem to be issues with lighting. I mean, the pitcher himself
> in each exposure reflects the light for a single exposure; but the anything
> static in the image (background, pitcher's mound) would have four exposure's
> worth of light built up. Not apparent in that image though. And how do you
> know that Bret is using a 20D and that that image is a multiple exposure? I
> couldn't find anything on the site.


It was a joke. Obviously, that photo was a digital composite.
Otherwise, you'd have a ghost pitcher (or a ghost pitcher picture)
which you could see right through.