
Video: At one trillion frames per second, you can see light move - luckylemon
http://kottke.org/12/08/extreme-slow-motion-photography
======
jeffreyg
why not just link to the TED video instead of a blog that offers nothing
additional?
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html)

~~~
luckylemon
I just happened to see it on that blog, and wanted to quote its phrasing
(which doesn't appear on the video's own page as far as I can see). Sometimes
a sentence adds a lot.

~~~
mycodebreaks
This is a clear violation of HN guideline. HN guideline is: "Please submit the
original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another
site, submit the latter."

~~~
nopal
He's obviously new here, so why not cut him a break.

luckylemon, it's true that there's a guideline regarding blog posts that link
to other material. You can see of the guidelines by following the link at the
bottom of the page [1]. Thanks for contributing something you feel is
interesting.

[1]<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
luckylemon
OK, will do in future. Thanks for pointing me to the rule.

------
acavailhez
As it was stated before, it's not a 10^-12 seconds camera, it's a very short
pulse laser cleverly synchronized with a very short span camera.

This experiment would not work with a moving object for instance. It still has
interesting applications though.

~~~
phpnode
I could be wrong, but as long as the object is moving at "normal" (e.g.
significantly less than the speed of light) speeds, this approach would work
for moving objects too.

~~~
shocks
Unfortunately, you are wrong.

The "video" of the pulse of light going through the bottle is actually the
result of sending trillions of light pulses through the bottle, taking
pictures at very precise (recorded) times and syncing them all together.

~~~
phpnode
right but doesn't this depend on how fast you can send and receive those
trillion light pulses? if that can be done in sufficiently short time, the
object in motion will have only moved by a small amount, and it will look like
it has been elongated in the direction of travel, like a motion blur.

The above is my uninformed and optimistic speculation.

~~~
shocks
Nope, because a single frame of the video is the result of many trillions of
light pulses.

Each time a picture is taken the exposure is so low that the image is
incredibly dark. These means they must take lots more and "add them together"
to produce a bright image.

If the object is moving it would be impossible since every new image would
have the object in a different place, and when you added them together to
counteract the fact each image is so under exposed (dark) the object would be
blurred.

------
kghose
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3346609>

------
mef
Research details <http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/>

~~~
Evbn
Why does the researche call it "trillion fps", when it is really 1/trillionth
sec frame? That sort of misrepresentation is supposed to be saved for the news
office or the popular press. The achievement is interesting enogh without the
deceptive exaggerations.

------
thong
I think this makes a great TED talk title, but this probably kicks in at some
point. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle>

------
mycodebreaks
Seriously, HN is getting worse.

I posted this earlier, and it didn't even make it to the homepage.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4392695>

This is a clear violation of HN guideline. HN guideline is: "Please submit the
original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another
site, submit the latter."

~~~
NeilRShah
So instead of talking about the content, we are all discussing the way that he
posted his content.

Who cares? One click, two clicks. It really doesn't effect me that much.

I think all of us are talking way too much much about how much HN needs to be
fixed. Almost every large thread has a reference to how HN is broken. HN may
or may not be "going downhill" but if that's all we talk about... It certainly
will.

And I recognize the irony in this statement. :)

~~~
shocks
BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS KARMA?! :O

------
antr
This URL should point to the source of the video i.e. ted.com not kottke.org

------
rorrr
Again, it's NOT trillion frames per second. Stop spreading this bullshit.

That camera takes extremely short exposures (1 trillionth of a sec), but it
cannot take 1 trillion of such exposures in one second. Not even close. Not
one billion, not one million (and probably not even one thousand, as there are
only a few sensors that can do that).

~~~
noselasd
They capture data at about half a trillion "fps". Then they repeat this over
and over and combine the data - as the light from just one exposure is too
weak.

~~~
rorrr
This just shows you don't understand how their technology works. They don't
capture the data at half a trillion FPS. They take very short exposures and
shift the phase very precisely, which creates an illusion of 1 trillion fps.

