Trillion frame per second video.

[dragonkeeper]

This is pretty cool by any account. Must be a pita to edit, lol.
Video at the speed of light.

[edDV]

This is pretty cool by any account. Must be a pita to edit, lol.
Video at the speed of light.

Looks like a MIT Media Lab funding stunt. They are at least half smoke and mirrors in their PR.

[edDV]

Mostly their work is targeted to the Discovery networks.

[fritzi93]

I was thinking stunt as well. I'm doubtful about the claim it could lead to something like"ultrasound with light". Maybe I need to read it again.

But it is pretty cool.

[El Heggunte]

Still very expensive, non-practical, and can be screwed by YouTube

Definitely not-so-cool

[Mephesto]

Utterly useless. The higher FPS you capture at the less light you give time to bounce into the shot. In the best-lit outdoor day, recording at 10,000 FPS turns an afternoon into an evening.

You couldn't see shit at 1 trillion FPS.

[Cornucopia]

Mephesto, you would be right if shutter speed was the only variable in the exposure equation.

You are forgetting: imager sensitivity, imager size, incoming light level. May not be ready for commercial primetime, but MIT stuff is rarely "smoke and mirrors".

Scott

[_Al_]

Universe is weird, photon has no time to exist, basically it starts to exist and the whole universe wheezes by it in infinitely small fraction of time until something absorbs it, this time bottle of coke , in reality what we see here though is photons that hit camera sensor not that bottle of coke, because a particular photon can cease to exist hitting only one particular destination (like our eye for example if we look at light). Never two persons can see the same photon. This test definitevly makes sense, it is popular science and can bring more young's from spending time on facebook to some lab at the end. In thist test you can imagine more closely how time stops for photon and space and time works differently for objects around it.

[yoda313]

Universe is weird, photon has no time to exist, basically it starts to exist and the whole universe wheezes by it in infinitely small fraction of time until something absorbs it, this time bottle of coke , in reality what we see here though is photons that hit camera sensor not that bottle of coke, because a particular photon can cease to exist hitting only one particular destination (like our eye for example if we look at light). Never two persons can see the same photon. This test definitevly makes sense, it is popular science and can bring more young's from spending time on facebook to some lab at the end. In thist test you can imagine more closely how time stops for photon and space and time works differently for objects around it.

Do you write for the History channels The Universe program?

I actually kind of follow what you are getting at. Thats what they have been covering at times on THE UNIVERSE program.

I'm definitely no physicist. But I find astronomy and other parts of science "fascinating" as Mr. Spock would say.

[_Al_]

, yeah , these sort of programs, it is interesting stuff, we live in exiting time now ...

[yoda313]

, yeah , these sort of programs, it is interesting stuff, we live in exiting time now ...

Yep. Especially with the cgi that makes it so much more understandable. Sure hand drawn animations back in the 80's were better than nothing but the full force cgi that is available now makes such abstract concepts as the multi-universe concept and exoplanet solar systems this makes it more accessible.

[Noahtuck]

I'm definitely no physicist. But I find astronomy and other parts of science "fascinating" as Mr. Spock would say.

If you have not yet, you should watch "Through the Wormhole".
They have had some pretty good stuff on the universe.

[yoda313]

I'm definitely no physicist. But I find astronomy and other parts of science "fascinating" as Mr. Spock would say.

If you have not yet, you should watch "Through the Wormhole".
They have had some pretty good stuff on the universe.

Thats the one with Morgan Freeman right?

I havent seen it. Isnt it on the science channel? I dont have that channel on my cable package. Is that on youtube yet perhaps?

[deadrats]

Universe is weird, photon has no time to exist, basically it starts to exist and the whole universe wheezes by it in infinitely small fraction of time until something absorbs it, this time bottle of coke , in reality what we see here though is photons that hit camera sensor not that bottle of coke, because a particular photon can cease to exist hitting only one particular destination (like our eye for example if we look at light). Never two persons can see the same photon. This test definitevly makes sense, it is popular science and can bring more young's from spending time on facebook to some lab at the end. In thist test you can imagine more closely how time stops for photon and space and time works differently for objects around it.

congratulations, you just made my IQ drop about 50 points.

[deadrats]

i'm going to assume that i am the only one that either bothered to read the article or understood what was being said. these guys didn't invent a camera that records at a trillion frames per second, at least not in the traditional sense:

The MIT researchers used a streak camera that has a narrow slit to allow in particles of light, known as photons. An electric field deflects the photons in a direction perpendicular to the slit, but deflects late-arriving photons more than early-arriving photons because it keeps changing.

Such a difference allows the streak camera to show the photons' arrival over time, but it also captures only one spatial dimension through its Slit view. To create two-dimensional images for their super-slow-mo video, the researchers had to perform the same light-passing-through-a-bottle experiment over and over again as they repositioned the camera slightly each time.

An hour's worth of work led to hundreds of thousands of data sets. Next, the MIT team, led by Ramesh Raskar, Media Lab associate professor, turned to computer algorithms to stitch the data together into the two-dimensional images.

[Mephesto]

Mephesto, you would be right if shutter speed was the only variable in the exposure equation.

You are forgetting: imager sensitivity, imager size, incoming light level. May not be ready for commercial primetime, but MIT stuff is rarely "smoke and mirrors".

Scott

Image size is irrelevant to the fact that photons travel at a finite speed and the quality of life you're used to seeing is owed to light working in femtoseconds range. At a trillion FPS, you reach about 1/1000 of the limit. You're practically in limbo.

Speaking of image size, it would be the size of a slit (lol) as the article confesses. Recording at a reasonable resolution at that rate is beyond insane.

This will never be ready for commercial primetime and its uses are barely resourceful for scientific pursuits let alone dorks filming balloon explosions for Youtube.

[usually_quiet]

I'm definitely no physicist. But I find astronomy and other parts of science "fascinating" as Mr. Spock would say.

If you have not yet, you should watch "Through the Wormhole".
They have had some pretty good stuff on the universe.

Thats the one with Morgan Freeman right?

I havent seen it. Isnt it on the science channel? I dont have that channel on my cable package. Is that on youtube yet perhaps?

You and I both have Comcast, if I recall correctly. The Science Channel isn't included in my package either, but "Through the Wormhole" is often available via "On Demand".

[yoda313]

You and I both have Comcast, if I recall correctly. The Science Channel isn't included in my package either, but "Through the Wormhole" is often available via "On Demand".

Ahh good point.

You know I do have on demand but I barely use it. I have about a dozen shows I record regularly. Also I've been a youtube hound lately grabbing a bunch of shows I want .

I"ve pretty much forgotten about on demand.

I'll check it out sometime. Thanks.