June 11, 2016

This Amazing Timelapse of Singapore Took 3 Years to Shoot

Typically when you hear about principal photography taking years to complete, it's some epic 3-hour feature like Boyhood, not a 5-minute time-lapse video.

But that's exactly what Australian filmmaker Keith Loutit's piece The Lion City II: Majulah is—a 5-minute time-lapse video that took years to shoot—three years, in fact, from June 2013 until this month. The gorgeous cityscapes captured in Singapore, which are more than deserving of its Vimeo Staff Pick, show the city's interesting change over time.

"When we pass by landscapes they appear fixed in time, but they change around us constantly. The idea behind this film is to reveal this change by returning to the same camera positions over the years."

After watching this, the first question that comes to mind is, "How!?" Loutit explains that shooting, which he did on the Nikon D4, several of which were set in different locations throughout the city, took three years to complete. And because of the project's sheer amount of data, he had to edit simultaneously. But though he has shared a little bit of information about his process, Loutit is keeping his trade secrets closely guarded.

So, maybe we don't know how he did it, but, somehow, that doesn't matter so much. We can appreciate this piece for its lovely use of color grading, dynamic motion, and powerful message, that even though we may not notice, the world is changing all around us.     

Your Comment

9 Comments

What a fantastic work of art! It could have been better with a different choice of music though.

June 12, 2016 at 1:31AM

0
Reply

I actually really like the music choice. I think it gives it sort of futuristic, dystopian feel that I associate with a huge tech centric city like Singapore. Kinda like a cyberpunk/Blade Runner feel

June 13, 2016 at 10:06AM

0
Reply
avatar
Max Walker
Editor
81

I agree with your comment amazing !!!!!!!

June 13, 2016 at 10:43AM

0
Reply
avatar
Aneesh Krishnan
Short Film Director
74

What a daft response. I suppose the Mona Lisa could have used more of a smile? You didn't care for the music, 'better' it could have not been. Art is just that, art. Not better, or worse, but is.

June 13, 2016 at 11:36PM

5
Reply

Yes, art is a thing that exists, but people can think some arts can be better than other arts. Just like how some people can respond to a comment nicer than other people.

June 14, 2016 at 7:01PM

0
Reply
bp
466

I think that's patently wrong. There are "master artists," and they are in each field. Otherwise, you're saying art has absolutely no objective content. Where do people get this strange idea that all art is of the same value?

June 16, 2016 at 9:48AM

2
Reply
James
Attorney
1

Stunning.

June 14, 2016 at 9:18PM

0
Reply

Nothing like taking 3 years on a project and releasing that bitch in 720p

June 15, 2016 at 12:48PM

0
Reply
avatar
Spencer Whiteman
Director/Cinematographer/Editor
147

Brilliant

June 20, 2016 at 11:16AM

2
Reply
avatar
Mael Sevestre
Film director
74