▲ 68 points
back
19 comments
Related: 1 year represented in a photo. https://eirikso.com/2011/01/04/one-year-in-one-image/
Not the same concept, but in terms of extremely long exposures I love these images too:
http://itchyi.squarespace.com/thelatest/2010/7/20/the-longes...
I'm actually working on my own implementation[0] as a standalone binary to avoid dealing with Perl and its dependencies and as a collaboration with my nephew, who is learning new photography styles and techniques.
For landscapes these are great. For action shots I’m a fan of the long-exposure-plus-flash approach where you get a sharp freeze frame overlaid on the motion blur showing the movement.
It would be interesting to see this concept extended into time-lapse video. The day/night segments of the video could shift to the right with the passage of time.
I think it won't move. As the segment is extracted by current time, it's somehow similar to record a video from day to night. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Getting a status 500 from Squid.
Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20230802225102/http://mkweb.bcgs...
Looks like this could be a browser problem?
Somewhat related – This comment from a few months ago about stitching images of passing trains: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35738987
Love this type of composite photography, really gives a fun perspective of a location.
This is awesome. Is there a version of this, or something similar, not using Perl? I have nothing against Perl other than I’m absolutely shit at it and have zero incentive to get better (except maybe playing with this).
(2006)
Added. Thanks!
> HDTR of the Vancouver Skyline on 19 July 2007
TIL this is a reliable method of time travel.
Why?
So you can show the passage of time in one image.
This is really really cool
One nitpick:
> a photograph, an inherently static medium
At least on a computer screen, it is far from static
Just displaying a photograph requires looping through the whole thing multiple times per second, both to refresh the display and to draw the image
And even a static photograph usually contains enough time information to be compressed quite a bit
This is more than a nitpick. If you want to define static in a way not implied by common usage, you could say that even a blank piece of paper is not static because it’s made of atoms, or orbiting the sun, or whatever. They clearly meant static in the sense that it’s not a video.
No one intended redefining static, just pointing out that a photograph is most definitely not static
And as you point out, everything in the universe is moving, which is actually a big deal that we don’t consider nearly enough, and which we tend to completely dismiss as if it was the most obvious thing in the world, like you are doing with your comment