« Photo Library Management | Main | The World's Most Desirable Camera (Has a Slight Problem) »

Thursday, 04 May 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I really didn't quite understand the technique involved. I am confident Ctein could explain it in a splendid manner. Wish he would chime-in.

- Aashish

I don't have anything intelligent to say. So, instead, let me suggest that this camera might just be able to photograph the elusive perfectum, the long sought quantum particle that carries perfectionism through the ether. The perfectum is thought to travel at several times the speed of light and is existentially persistent: it can neither be created nor destroyed. It is and ever shall be. How clever of you to suggest a hidden way to connect yesterday's post with today's!

Pah! No power booster grip, no sale.

Fun Fact to Know and Tell

It would require 158,549 years to find a definitive decisive moment in a 1-second "burst" from that camera.*

* Assuming viewing 1 frame/second, with no sleep, nutrition, or bathroom breaks.

Doc. Edgerton would be proud of this achievement - http://edgerton-digital-collections.org/techniques/high-speed-photography. Some of the movies of nuclear tests taken using his equipment have recently been put on YouTube - https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5

This fascinating stuff. Here is a lecture from TED on this subject from 2012. Boggles the mind. https://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second

If I spend, lets say $50K for this rig, I'll have to sell at least 15,300 stock copies at 6.50 ea. at 50% net commish. Don't steal my keywords!

Two and a half trillion frames just before what I want followed by two and a half trillion just after. It's a given.

Good initial question...

"Instead of taking images one by one in a sequence, like other high-speed cameras, this took four separate images per frame. The researchers called the technology Frequency Recognition Algorithm for Multiple Exposures (FRAME)."

Gah, I've been doing that for years, I call it System for High Algorithm Kinimatic Exposure (SHAKE)

"Things like this are why less educated people mistrust science"

As uneducated man who loves science, I'd say that sounds like reverse causation, but I left school early so what do I know

To get that kind of frame rate, the ISO must be insanely high, in the quadrillions or beyond. Better be noise-free too! Battery life is rumored to be 500 shots, or roughly 0.000000001 second.

How much storage space does 1 trillion photos take for a 1 second burst. The buffer would have to be immense. Is anyone interested in editing down 1 trillion pictures on a light table or a monitor?

I remember the US government designed a special camera that ran an immense amount of film through it. This was so they could see the explosion of an above ground atomic bomb. The frames were so fast the stills showed the explosion bursting through the case around the bomb.


[I'm sorta being tongue-in-cheek James. --Mike]

If you think that is something... I can photograph a SunBurn in progress!

Considering that intended use of this purpose built camera is to capture what's going on inside combustion chamber of an engine ... just think for a second what that environment would do to your favorite model hair ... back-lit or not ...

Useful rule of thumb from my undergraduate days was that light traveled about one foot per nanosecond. So we're looking at less than a thousandth of a foot, or about twelve thousandths of an inch- ie around double the valve clearances in your car.

What size SD card does it use, and how many picoseconds does it take to fill it up?

Fantastic stuff!

More prosaically, commercial cameras are available off the shelf which "only" do 10 million frames per second...

"... events that cannot be caught on FILM today." (emphasis mine). That made me laugh.

I wonder, if we take Ken Tanaka's premise above and move from time to a physical object, how long would that strip of film be?

I suspect Ken Tanaka didn't include the impact of leap years in his calculation of how many years. By the Gregorian calendar, the task would come more than a lifetime faster: 158,443 years and by astronomical Julian calendar it would be 158,440 years (approximately).

Of course, this is premised on the rotation of earth, and it's orbit round old Sol, as being constant between now and then, but certainly those are false assumptions.


I have a dilemma...

If the camera can capture the photons traveling the thickness of the sheet of paper (every frame captures that traveled distance)....

And photon is the smallest energy that has "light".

From where does the light come from that photon to the camera?

Okay.... So if I take a E27 lighbulb and I power it up with a cord and then I throw it in air and I use high speed camera to capture its motion....
The camera i receiving the photons it emits as well that are bouncing off from it and those enters to the speed camera lens and to the sensor....

Now swap that lightbulb to as photon... How can a photon transmit more photons from it, that are captured?

What I am trying to understand, is how we can "see" a photon, when we need that photon to be captured to be seen?

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007