MIT Shows Trillion-Frames-per-Second Video

[slabbo]

1 Trillion frames played at 30 frames per second would last over 1050 years. that's a lot of harddrive space.

 

[kjsfnkwl]

This will be great for viewing on my 60 hertz monitor...

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]jecastej[/nom]In general I agree with your comment. But for very fast moving objects or cameras on video even 240 fps could make a enjoyable difference we can perceive. However it will pale in comparison to a trillion fps, so your comment is still good by a solid margin. After 240 fps i am not sure if we could have another useless "fps" marketing war from monitor and tv makers similar to the dynamic contrast ratio.As for slow motion I think Hollywood could still find ways to produce some effects with a camera like this, even if this technology is used as a way to sale movies.[/citation]

I wonder if animals with faster optic nerves are fooled with a screen that utilizes a much higher refresh rate. So for instance, would a hawk be fooled into believing there is a real mouse on a screen?

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]dennis555[/nom]*hear the sirens calling* My eyes are sensitive enough to tell the difference between 120hz and 60hz. Anyone saying they can't probably has never seen higher than 60hz.[/citation]

Technically, your eyes can throughput that. Its our brains that are too slow to interpret that data I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[del35]

Too bad they can't film at 1000 trillion frames per second. If they actually could they might see that some of the frames show nothing.

 

[razor512]

Now we just need a camera that can do full frame 4K video at 1 trillion FPS.

Imagine getting cool cat videos at 1 trillion frames per second. You would be able to do awesome slow motion shots as well as great high speed shots with no motion blur.

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]Since light behaves as a wave and particle and creates interference patterns when shot through two parallel pinholes with some odd quantum behavior thrown in, could this then be observed with this method of video capture? It would be interesting to see.[/citation]

From the video, it did not see actual photons (probably need a significantly faster frame rate, but the movement of it seems to be a motion blur of photons, or not a high enough resolution since the photons will be in the atom range)

so far this is mainly a good proof of concept of what high speed cameras can do but has no true practical uses as of yep. All in all it is still a great discovery from a technology standpoint and will most likely make it's way into many aspects of society and technology.

 

[rjandric]

Basically you see time slowed down, light/time in realtivistic sense.

 

[xophaser]

what?

 

[eddieroolz]

Watched the bottle video as well. It's stunning.

 

[cookoy]

just what CERN needed to take the photo of Higgs Boson and friends

 

[Guest]

Does this mean they can gain new insight into the pinhole camera photon experiment?

 

[Guest]

i don't care how much camera costs.
what is presented in this article is SciFi.
It is impossible to generate a repetitive flux of electrons higher than the speed of light.
the electron itself is not able to reach the speed of light.
so what the hell it is all about?

to capture something that travels during one second from point A to point B it is needed a camera that can generate frames at least to times faster.(actually it is possible with up to 60 frames/sec at consumer video cameras)

but here we have something that travels from point A to point B in one second/speed of light.
imagine that there is needed o frequency higher then speed of light to record a light pulse.
Phisically it is impossible - imagine the delays added by hardware used.