downstairs: Can someone explain that to a non-physics major?

You can capture the movement of light across a room. That, or the hi-def cat video to end all cat videos

The Weeners on the page:

EarthboundMisfit 12/12 07:55 PM

That's almost fast enough to catch the federal gov't adding new taxes to us all.

Some people can seriously just not shut the fark up about politics

That, or the hi-def cat video to end all cat videos

You say that now, but just wait until they release the 2.4 teraframe camera next Christmas! it'll be like 2.4 times more cat video!

You can't actually see the light moving, it's already reached you and is 'done' moving by the time the camera captures it.

I think this is a bit of st00pid journalist. What they're seeing is individual protons arriving over a fixed time of beaming the light at the camera.

downstairs: Can someone explain that to a non-physics major?

Given the speed of light, light would travel 0.3 milimeters per frame. So you could observe a new light source moving across the room (of course it would have to bounce of objects etc)

Hoboclown: The Weeners on the page:

EarthboundMisfit 12/12 07:55 PM

That's almost fast enough to catch the federal gov't adding new taxes to us all.

Some people can seriously just not shut the fark up about politics

i weep for humanity.


god those are some NEAT videos of the progression of a flash of light tho.

downstairs: Can someone explain that to a non-physics major?

It's exactly what an engineers first instinct would be. Not a camera that can take a trillion frame per second, but 500 cameras that take images 1 picosecond apart. This also means that your video is a whopping 500 picoseconds long. Still a neat device, but you'll need extremely precise triggering to make it take a useful video. Not something you'll be able to just hold down the record button and see what happens.

This is a good enough reason for Mythbusters to re-film every single one of their explosions. :)

twotowner: This is a good enough reason for Mythbusters to re-film every single one of their explosions. :)

And each one would take years to watch.

downstairs: Can someone explain that to a non-physics major?

700,000 trillion frames worth of a Ron Jeremy money shot.

That's BS. They're not really taking a picture of light moving at all. They're using the preconceived notions of how photons work to reconstruct a video.

HST's Dead Carcass: So, the camera moves faster than the speed of light? So much for Einstein's silly little theory!

The reel of film becomes a sigularity. They can only use this camera once.

High definition is a measure of picture quality, not frame rate, dumbmitter.

Hoboclown: Some people can seriously just not shut the fark up about politics

Notice how at family gatherings it's always conservatives who are obnoxious and can't shut the fark up.

Flt209er: downstairs: Can someone explain that to a non-physics major?

It's exactly what an engineers first instinct would be. Not a camera that can take a trillion frame per second, but 500 cameras that take images 1 picosecond apart. This also means that your video is a whopping 500 picoseconds long. Still a neat device, but you'll need extremely precise triggering to make it take a useful video. Not something you'll be able to just hold down the record button and see what happens.

Approves:

crab66: Hoboclown: Some people can seriously just not shut the fark up about politics

Notice how at family gatherings it's always conservatives who are obnoxious and can't shut the fark up.

Not always. Ever been stuck at a social gathering with hippies? They just can't shut the fark up about the environment or why being vegetarian is better.

INeedAName: twotowner: This is a good enough reason for Mythbusters to re-film every single one of their explosions. :)

And each one would take years to watch.

I can't wait for Shark Decade!

Can someone explain why the White guy sounds Indian?

Better article: Link (new window)

crab66: Hoboclown: Some people can seriously just not shut the fark up about politics

Notice how at family gatherings it's always conservatives who are obnoxious and can't shut the fark up.

You're not helping.

BTW. I love reading reading Fark threads where everyone is talking about unimpressive & simple these MIT experiments are.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: That's BS. They're not really taking a picture of light moving at all. They're using the preconceived notions of how photons work to reconstruct a video.

DING DING! We have a winner!

The scientist even says they built a "virtual camera" to recreate the movement of light. It's not a picture at all. It's a CGI representation of how they think photons behave.

taurusowner: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: That's BS. They're not really taking a picture of light moving at all. They're using the preconceived notions of how photons work to reconstruct a video.

DING DING! We have a winner!

The scientist even says they built a "virtual camera" to recreate the movement of light. It's not a picture at all. It's a CGI representation of how they think photons behave.

Sure doesn't sound like a CGI representation (unless you count all digital images as "CGI representations")... From the project site (new window):

Our light source is a Titanium Sapphire laser that emits pulses at regular intervals every ~13 nanoseconds. These pulses illuminate the scene, and also trigger our picosecond accurate streak tube which captures the light returned from the scene. The streak camera has a reasonable field of view in horizontal direction but very narrow (roughly equivalent to one scan line) in vertical dimension. At every recording, we can only record a '1D movie' of this narrow field of view. In the movie, we record roughly 480 frames and each frame has a roughly 1.71 picosecond exposure time. Through a system of mirrors, we orient the view of the camera towards different parts of the object and capture a movie for each view. We maintain a fixed delay between the laser pulse and our movie starttime. Finally, our algorithm uses this captured data to compose a single 2D movie of roughly 480 frames each with an effective exposure time of 1.71 picoseconds.

Of course, I'm just reading the description from the project director, so maybe he's wrong.

so what. still waiting on my holodeck.

You idiots! Why are you filming light! First thing you need to do is film a girl with big boobies jumping up and down! Imagine how super slow you could show that footage!

/In all seriousness this is really cool
//Still would like to see the slow-mo boobies though

BFD. We already built a space shuttle that travels nearly 18 times the speed of light.

Pontious Pilates: BFD. We already built a space shuttle that travels nearly 18 times the speed of light.

For some reason this post seems to make the most sense in this whole thread.

crab66: Hoboclown: Some people can seriously just not shut the fark up about politics

Notice how at family gatherings it's always conservatives who are obnoxious and can't shut the fark up.

Did you also notice that at family gatherings the fellow liberals always had brilliant points, cleverly delivered, and just by coincide perfectly in sync with your views?

/isn't it annoying how some people bring politics in to everything? As an example let me interject a story about these conservatives I don't like.

ProfessorOhki: Of course, I'm just reading the description from the project director, so maybe he's wrong.

It's not quite that. It's more akin to how a cathode ray tube creates a picture.It doesn't create a whole picture all at once, it creates it line by line, but because it does it fast enough you perceive a whole image. What they're doing with this is recording what analogous to lines on a TV screen then just assembling them into a single video.

This is the type of framerate they need to take measurements off of FEL lasers (new window). http://www.xfel.eu/

They might use it to take 'pictures' of proteins and enzymes as they fold and unfold- by pictures I mean electron density maps.

kvinesknows: Can someone explain why the White guy sounds Indian?

I thought they both sounded Canadian...maybe like one is a Newfie and the other from Vancouver?

This amazing camera is so fast that it was able to capture a single frame of a woman with her mouth shut!

/Hard to believe.

WhyteRaven74: ProfessorOhki: Of course, I'm just reading the description from the project director, so maybe he's wrong.

It's not quite that. It's more akin to how a cathode ray tube creates a picture.It doesn't create a whole picture all at once, it creates it line by line, but because it does it fast enough you perceive a whole image. What they're doing with this is recording what analogous to lines on a TV screen then just assembling them into a single video.

Yep. That's how I read it too. The only catch is it's dependant on each pulse behaving in a deterministic manner because each scanline is recorded as a different exposure. Maybe that was true with older image sensors too; I admit I don't know much about them

StoneColdAtheist: kvinesknows: Can someone explain why the White guy sounds Indian?

I thought they both sounded Canadian...maybe like one is a Newfie and the other from Vancouver?

meh newfie/indian Tomato/Tomahto

And none of the scientists speak English as a first language, good going US education system!

lohphat: So they're not taking realtime images of static objects but taking a lot of images over time and compositing them into a time lapse video segment.

Not so special.

All a video is is a bunch of static images over time in a row. So, yeah, they're taking a video.

Anyone notice the little swivel mirror had fingerprints on it? Did we learn nothing from Real Genius? Always check your optics!

torusXL: You can't actually see the light moving, it's already reached you and is 'done' moving by the time the camera captures it.

I think this is a bit of st00pid journalist. What they're seeing is individual protons arriving over a fixed time of beaming the light at the camera.

hehe,

try pHotons...

pot, meet kettle, kettle, pot :)

"So they're not taking realtime images of static objects but taking a lot of images over time and compositing them into a time lapse video segment.

Not so special."

actually, i'd say its rather clever. the individual parts and ideas existed, from what i understand, quite some time.

this was the guy who put the discreet units together to figure it out.

yes, it is not definitive proof of how light is propigating over space (playing with sync between camera release and a pulsed laser); but, it's the best we got atm.

just like a camera; lenses have been around for quite some time, the idea of camera obscura/lightbox existed for quite some time, light effecting materials had been understood for quite some time; someone had to put all those ideas together in a workable way (and figure out a way to "fix" the light arrangement on the resultant materials.

taurusowner: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: That's BS. They're not really taking a picture of light moving at all. They're using the preconceived notions of how photons work to reconstruct a video.

DING DING! We have a winner!

The scientist even says they built a "virtual camera" to recreate the movement of light. It's not a picture at all. It's a CGI representation of how they think photons behave.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's freaking ruin it for everyone. Yeah, that will be way more awesome than just being "WHOA THAT'S COOL" when watching the video.

/jerk

ProfessorOhki: WhyteRaven74: ProfessorOhki: Of course, I'm just reading the description from the project director, so maybe he's wrong.

It's not quite that. It's more akin to how a cathode ray tube creates a picture.It doesn't create a whole picture all at once, it creates it line by line, but because it does it fast enough you perceive a whole image. What they're doing with this is recording what analogous to lines on a TV screen then just assembling them into a single video.

Yep. That's how I read it too. The only catch is it's dependant on each pulse behaving in a deterministic manner because each scanline is recorded as a different exposure. Maybe that was true with older image sensors too; I admit I don't know much about them

That's still true of most video camera sensors. The cheap sensors used in cell phone and handheld video recorders use a 'rolling shutter'. Each line is captured separately, and reconstructed in the video file. You can see the effect by recording something that is moving quicker than the shutter: airplane propellers look really strange; even the guard rail at the side of the road at 70 will show distortion.

ykarie: ProfessorOhki: WhyteRaven74: ProfessorOhki: Of course, I'm just reading the description from the project director, so maybe he's wrong.

It's not quite that. It's more akin to how a cathode ray tube creates a picture.It doesn't create a whole picture all at once, it creates it line by line, but because it does it fast enough you perceive a whole image. What they're doing with this is recording what analogous to lines on a TV screen then just assembling them into a single video.

Yep. That's how I read it too. The only catch is it's dependant on each pulse behaving in a deterministic manner because each scanline is recorded as a different exposure. Maybe that was true with older image sensors too; I admit I don't know much about them

That's still true of most video camera sensors. The cheap sensors used in cell phone and handheld video recorders use a 'rolling shutter'. Each line is captured separately, and reconstructed in the video file. You can see the effect by recording something that is moving quicker than the shutter: airplane propellers look really strange; even the guard rail at the side of the road at 70 will show distortion.

Oh, that's sort of neat. I was thinking of CCD/CMOS arrays, never occurred to me they used the linear ones outside of things like scanners. I guess the old camera tubes were scan-based too.