|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Who have the time?
who in the world that have time to see a 25,000,000 fps film at 25 fps? this will take more than 277 hour for each second. watching 10 secondes will take more than three months of 24 hour watching. and about a year to watch 30 second?!!
- Everyone will have the time - they only record about 8 or 16 frames at that speed. Ehusman 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, disagree with the merge. A High speed camera is something you can use to achieve slow motion. There are computer games that have a slow motion mode, as Max Payne does, but there is no high speed camera filming it - it's a game. Also, there is a Slow mode function on some control pads, which creates slow motion by rapidly pausing and unpausing the game, even further moving away the high speed camera topic from slow motion. --Abdull 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree with the merge. Many applications of high speed cameras do not ever involve playing back the video at a slower speed. In many cases, various information is digitally extracted from the video stream for other sorts of analyses. While it is certainly possible to create slow motion video from a high speed camera, one could also create "slow motion" with a regular camera by playing the video back at a slower frame rate. It will not be as detailed, but it is still slow motion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) UTC 19:19, 14 October 2005.
The arguments against the merge above seem persuasive to me. Also, I would be interested in hearing exactly why this article should be merged? -- Captain Disdain 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Disagree with merge. There are scientific used of high-speed cameras that are not related to filmmaking. Since the tag has been on for over a month, and no-one has agreed with the merge suggestion, I'll remove the tags from both articles, as per WP:BB --Janke | Talk 10:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with High speed photography?
I agree that this shouldn't be merged with slow mo - but what about high speed photography? It seems clear that high speed cameras will be used for high speed photography, and that photography will be accomplished with high speed cameras. In other words, they are inseparable. Ehusman 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
How was it determined that the Weinberger link was an advertisement, but the nearly identical links to Cordin, AOS, SVSi, etc., are not? The only one that seems to be non-commercial is the first link to Dr. Alciatore's website. Ehusman 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop talking about the merge
It is unneccesary, lets leave this page here for a while? I wanted info on high speed cameras, hence I am here and would not have wanted to be transferred to a page on high speed photography or slow motion. Additionally, I read (in a book)(and will verify and modify if I can find the source again)that high speed cameras capable of 1,000,000 sustained frames per second were used by the US military in Atomic Bomb Tests. Cheers, Bugle
- What do you mean by "sustained"? A camera capable of such high frame rates is covered on the HS photography page. Ehusman 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
50 picoseconds per frame or 50.000.000.000 frames per second?
One frame every 50 picoseconds is 1 frame every seconds is equivalent to or 20.000.000.000 frames per second. So one of the values stated in the text is not correct (and as there are no sources stated, there's no way to find out which one is wrong).
Either way, couldn't one watch a laser beam of photons traveling through fog at that rate? Light travels one foot in about one nanosecond in a vacuum. Picoseconds are a few orders of magnitude smaller than a nanosecond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:51, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
- In theory - yes. However, the power output of the laser would still have to be very high, and you would have to time it very accurately as very high speed cameras only capture a hand full of frames. That said, you don't actually need that fast of a camera (in terms of frames/second, not 'fast' as in lenses). Even if you had only, say, 20,000,000 (20 million) frames per second, you could see the expansion of light from a light source. Light travels at 299,792,458m/s. Divide that by the 20 million, and you end up with roughly 15 meters per frame. That is more than enough to observe, for example, light expanding from a street lantern down a street. Even though this is actually not possible to do due to the high lighting conditions required at this time, it can be simulated. See, for example, the Relativistic Raytracer ( http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/ ). Demo videos of a lantern being switched on/off, as well as a flickering lantern, are provided. 188.8.131.52 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's incorrect to say "you'll only capture a handful of frames". Given the same amount of memory available to you, you'll always capture the same number of frames whether you do it at 500 fps or 10000000 fps. The difference is how long in real-time you will be able to record. 500 fps @ 300x200 grayscale resolution you get 11 seconds w/ 2 GB memory. Go up to 1000 fps you get 5.5 seconds etc etc. And the reason why you use really intense lights when recording high speed is so you can decrease the aperture size of the lens that's being used to increase the range of the depth of focus. Because you are so limited with memory (128 gb is the most I've seen and it costs maybe $20,000) you never see full resolution videos taken at super high fps (>10,000). Instead you get the camera as focused as possible at the point the event is going to occur and you narrow the resolution to as few pixels as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)