Captured Light. Really amazing. I love science!.. so you're telling me they have a camera that has a framerate of 10 billion or some large number, but the best container they could get was a coke bottle nailed  fucking science
x
Click to expand

Comments(158):

[ 158 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#57 - lolkizza (02/27/2013) [-]
so you're telling me they have a camera that has a framerate of 10 billion or some large number, but the best container they could get was a coke bottle nailed to a peice of wood?
User avatar #81 to #57 - ProWig (02/27/2013) [-]
what else would you have used?
User avatar #97 to #57 - raffinrox (02/27/2013) [-]
its 3 trillion frames per second
#100 to #57 - hereiamanonymous (02/27/2013) [-]
obviously coke sponsored this **** .

> Iaintevenmad.jpg
0
#114 to #100 - hockeycrasysteve **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#63 to #57 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
Product placement.

They were probably payed to.
User avatar #129 to #57 - IAmManbearpig (02/27/2013) [-]
they spent all their money on the camera, they can't afford **** now.
#98 - ayenon (02/27/2013) [-]
Each colored bar represents a photo being taken on the timeline. The light is shot through the bottle hundreds or thousands of times (6 times here for simplicity), and takes photos at intervals each time. By the end, you have a full series of images that you can string together into a movie ( in this gif it's the rainbow at the end)   
   
   
made the gid just then, dont hate
Each colored bar represents a photo being taken on the timeline. The light is shot through the bottle hundreds or thousands of times (6 times here for simplicity), and takes photos at intervals each time. By the end, you have a full series of images that you can string together into a movie ( in this gif it's the rainbow at the end)


made the gid just then, dont hate
#123 to #98 - bagman (02/27/2013) [-]
Thank you most sincerely for the science, my good man
User avatar #127 to #98 - Leopard (02/27/2013) [-]
That's really cool and all, but how can a camera capture a frame so quickly?
User avatar #181 to #127 - ayenon (03/02/2013) [-]
The camera simply has an extremely fast shutter speed, on the order of picoseconds (0.000 000 000 001 seconds, or a trillionth of a second). It takes light 3.3 picoseconds to travel 1mm (actually slightly more due to lack of vacuum).

This means that the camera is able to open its shutter, take a photo, close the shutter, and reopen again in around 10-20 picoseconds. However, because the light would have moved nearly 1cm by then, the camera must go back and take a photo slightly ahead of time so it captures all the stuff it missed.

TL;DR version : science science voodoo hoola hoop
User avatar #182 to #181 - Leopard (03/02/2013) [-]
In order to take a photo, the camera has to capture light within that picosecond.
User avatar #183 to #182 - ayenon (03/02/2013) [-]
no necessarily. It's a complex process, but its not too dissimilar to a standard DSLR camera.

On a DSLR, if you increase the shutter speed, the image gets darker, since it has less time to let light in.

Similarly, since the shutter is only open for such a tiny amount of time, it only captures a tiny amount of light. So the same shot must be taken thousands of times, then those thousands of images are overlapped to produce one frame that's bright enough to see.

So the order in which the frames are captured might be : 1,3, 5, 7, ect. It must go over these frames thousands of times before there is an image bright enough to see. After those frames are done, it moves on to : 2, 4, 6, 8, ect and the same thing is done
User avatar #184 to #183 - Leopard (03/02/2013) [-]
So, light is already traveling towards the camera, the shudder opens and closes to let that small amount of light in, in that small amount of time. Ahh i see..
User avatar #185 to #184 - ayenon (03/02/2013) [-]
as long as the bottle and the camera don't move at all, ideally photons will reflect the exact same way every time, making films like this possible to create.

However, you would not be able to take a video of, say, a car at the same speed (1 trillion fps). This is because the photons need to reflect of a stationary object (the bottle) millions of times, and hit the same point (the camera) every single time, at the exact same angle.

You could do the same thing with a bullet, although the resulting film would be nearly a year long at 1 trillion fps.
User avatar #173 to #127 - doctadoc (02/28/2013) [-]
You really want to ask that question? Do you know how the human eye works? Or why objects have gravity? Do you know why blue is blue or red is red? There are things that people know and some people don't know. But everything can be answered through development. We develop answers, technology, theories, and questions to be answered every day. Think about it. You have access to all the information in the world in your phone. 30 years ago, that would have been witch craft. In a couple decades, cameras like these will be common knowledge just like cell phones and the internet.
User avatar #174 to #173 - Leopard (02/28/2013) [-]
The thing is. They do know, there is an answer. If not, how was it done. I'm not asking for someone to explain something that hasn't been invented yet, like time travel or force fields. I'm asking about this one camera that this team of engineers made.

Also, camera's like this won't be common in 30 years. In the 60's, a camera was made that could capture images in 1 millionth of a second. I don't see those around.
User avatar #175 to #174 - doctadoc (02/28/2013) [-]
I know there is an answer, but the question is...can you understand it?
User avatar #179 to #175 - Leopard (03/01/2013) [-]
Yes. Can you tell me the answer?
0
#180 to #179 - doctadoc Comment deleted by doctadoc [-]
User avatar #106 to #98 - dapape (02/27/2013) [-]
So the whole gif isnt the same light particle you're saying.
User avatar #107 to #106 - ayenon (02/27/2013) [-]
No, the light is shot multiple times and only a few frames are taken each time. This is because of the speed of the camera being slower than the speed of light, and also many things such as electronic latency and data production speed.

I have used the term 'round' to describe each time a beam is shot.

So in the coca cola video above, you are actually seeing many thousands of different beams taken at different times.

To help understand better, imagine taking a photo of tar dripping off a ledge. You come back a week later and take a photo in the exact same position, the tar has moved a slight amount. Repeat for several years and put the photos together, it will look as if the tar takes seconds to reach the ground. This is exactly the principle used to film the travel of light
User avatar #109 to #107 - dapape (02/27/2013) [-]
sheeeeiit
User avatar #101 to #98 - nicoquitemad (02/27/2013) [-]
That is awesome.
#138 - goodpsize (02/27/2013) [-]
**goodpsize rolls 55**
User avatar #87 - Rockycrack (02/27/2013) [-]
For all those ********* saying you cant travel faster than light
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Light travels slower through water. Cherenkov radiation are due to electrons moving faster than light.
You can't travel faster than light IN SPACE
User avatar #88 to #87 - Rockycrack (02/27/2013) [-]
And that bottle seems to have water in it
#89 to #87 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
Galaxies move faster than light (some) as do neutrinos. Oh, and the force of push, but that's a bit controversial.
User avatar #90 to #89 - bramdk (02/27/2013) [-]
all of those dont because of frames of reference and a difrence in the speed of time that occurs at difrent velocities
neutrinos have bein proven to not travel faster then light those were roumors and after a long research process it was found to be a measurement error
the force of push travels at the speed of sound through the thing you are pushing
User avatar #102 to #90 - eddymolly (02/27/2013) [-]
Actually, some galaxies can move faster than the speed of light. If they're at the very edge of the universe, the space-time between them is expanding at a rate faster than light travels in the frame of reference of the universe, hence they are seen as moving away from each other faster than C in terms of the universal frame, even though technically, they aren't moving faster than light but when the space between them expands as well, there speed moving away from each other is greater than C, if that makes sense?
User avatar #118 to #102 - bramdk (02/27/2013) [-]
it does and it doesnt because light in that frame of reference is also moving faster
User avatar #164 to #118 - eddymolly (02/27/2013) [-]
No, just, just no. Thats a fundamental law of Physics, in every single frame of reference, light travels at speed C (3*10^8m/s near enough) in a vacume. You couldn't have light going faster.
User avatar #176 to #164 - bramdk (02/28/2013) [-]
it is also a fundamental law of physics that you cannot go faster then light in any way
its simply impossible for an object with mass which galaxies certainly have
there is something wrong in your previous statement and although i am wrong with the past one (i researched it) you are to

i will bother to explain

E=mc^2 is right but it is incomplete
for the sake of this explanation we will put momentum as P (i am copying this from minute physics and they know their **** )

if you want the full story you will need to use the equation
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 like i said P stands for the momentum of the object
take away the PC and you get the energy of a motionless object
Take away mc^2 and you will get E=PC aka E=momentum*speed of light
because this can be made into a triangle (like a pytagoras triangle) you can never have an object with mass that has E=PC it can get close to it but never quite reach it
this is what makes objects to go as fast as light
User avatar #177 to #176 - eddymolly (02/28/2013) [-]
True, that is the correct equation, but what you haven't taken into account with your argument is a few thing.

1) In real world examples, you genrally can't remove factor of m0. You can have a value of p equal to 0, but you can't have a value of m0 equal to 0 if you have a value of p in your equation (because if m0=0, p=m0*v=0) There are situations where you can such as with massless particles, like photons or gague bosons (you could argue that you could include gluons as well, but thats a different matter)

2) I never said the objects themselves were moving faster than light, in fact I specifically said they weren't. The galaxies are moving away from each other very fast, yes, but not at the speed of light. The thing that makes them faster than light in a universal frame of reference (thats a very important bit here, the fact this is being observed from the frame of reference of the universe) is the expansion of space-time between the objects adding to there apparent speed (as space-time expansion is capable of faster-than-light speeds) which means the objects themselves are apparently moving apart faster than the speed of light in the universal frame

3) This (space-time expansion) also allows faster than light movement of other universal objects, most notably space-time virtual points, which again, rely on the expansion of space-time between them.
#148 to #87 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
Relative to absolute space, YOU cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
#122 to #87 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
But light is always the fastest. it just doesn't make a straight line, it basically bumps a tiny bit, but enough to make it look like it's slower from the outside. water has a refractive index of 1.33 so light will travel at c/1.33 in water. but the photon is still always traveling at c
User avatar #165 to #122 - eddymolly (02/27/2013) [-]
As someone already said, Light doesn't always travel at C, it travels at C in a vacume, but slows down in different mediums. C is its max speed.
#4 - grimmapple (02/26/2013) [-]
i don't remember where exactly this happened, but I did see the initial talk given about it. In a dark room, some guys shot as close to a single photon of light from a laser pointer as they could, and then, with a camera taking 10 billion photos a second, they viewed the light as it traveled through this coke bottle. There are theories of how they can use this for seeing into rooms from the hallways, without blasting radiation into random locations, more efficient medical scans and other stuff. I'm getting a lot of use out of this picture recently.
#119 to #4 - physicsdude (02/27/2013) [-]
Yeah let me tell you why that is ******** .
You can only see things from the photons reflected from material. So you can only see the photon the moment it hits the camera. So no you can't see it travel you can only see where it is at the moment you measure it. Meaning the only time you would be able to see the photon is when it hits the camera. It is impossible to see it when it is traveling.
#168 to #167 - physicsdude (02/27/2013) [-]
They send a pulse of photons. That is billions of billions of billions of photons. Not just one. What you see as light are billions of photons being reflected by the air, cola bottle or table hitting the camera. The light you see are photons hitting the camera or your eye that have traveled from the place that seems bright to your eye.

It is impossible to observe a photon traveling. You can only say where it started and where it ended. Everything in between is speculation, that we will never be able to see.
0
#121 to #4 - idontwantausername has deleted their comment [-]
#5 to #4 - grimmapple (02/26/2013) [-]
They calculated how long it would take to watch a bullet shot from a handgun at the same slow down, and it came out to be about 1 year. It would take 365 days to watch a bullet move if watching at this slow down.
They calculated how long it would take to watch a bullet shot from a handgun at the same slow down, and it came out to be about 1 year. It would take 365 days to watch a bullet move if watching at this slow down.
User avatar #6 to #5 - doctadoc (02/26/2013) [-]
Interesting...
User avatar #8 to #6 - grimmapple (02/26/2013) [-]
I thought so.
#9 to #6 - grimmapple (02/26/2013) [-]
Another interesting tidbit, light travels at 3x10^8 miles per hour, which is 300,000,000 miles per hour, which is 186,282 miles per second, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. Which means that it's really 			*******		 fast.
Another interesting tidbit, light travels at 3x10^8 miles per hour, which is 300,000,000 miles per hour, which is 186,282 miles per second, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. Which means that it's really ******* fast.
User avatar #11 to #9 - doctadoc (02/26/2013) [-]
This, I already knew...but I like the gif.
User avatar #72 to #9 - jcbiddulph (02/27/2013) [-]
670,616,629 mph, we round up the speed of light to 3*10^8 metres per second
#10 to #4 - frostbitezt (02/26/2013) [-]
It was shown in a TED talk, I think this is what you're talking about: www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html
#132 - artificialego (02/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#23 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
technically, arent all pictures just captured light?
User avatar #47 - luidias (02/27/2013) [-]
ITT people not understanding the difference between framerate and the velocity of light.

the frame rate does not depend on velocity because it does not have a displacement component. The frame rate is based entirely on the interval between each frame (i.e it only has a time component and a unit-less 'number of frames' component). Basically, you just need a camera that takes multiple frames in the amount of time that it would take the light beam to travel from one end of the field of view to the other.

tl;dr Stop saying that this is impossible because "the camera needs to travel faster than light". that's not how it works.
User avatar #49 to #47 - luidias (02/27/2013) [-]
P.S. what I believe the scientists did in this case was capture different portions of the light beam travelling at a time, then stitched it together to make a full video. Their system was fully repeatable, so they can record different portions of many identical light beams. this enabled them to emulate an even higher framerate than technically possible.
#58 to #49 - fuckyouto ONLINE (02/27/2013) [-]
Kinda, Light cant enter the lens because well Light is going slower then the actual machine. Go watch the doc its quite cool.
User avatar #60 to #58 - luidias (02/27/2013) [-]
I didn't actually watch the whole thing yet, but I'm going to when I get a break between studying. It looks really interesting. It's amazing how we can find loopholes and workarounds for things that aren't technically possible yet.

man, I love science.
User avatar #128 - Leopard (02/27/2013) [-]
How are they able to capture an image that fast? Inorder to take a picture, the camera has to absorb light. It's seems to be taking pictures faster then the speed of light.
#133 to #128 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
excatly. camera would have to be 10 bilion fps per 1 sec then

0/10 would not science
User avatar #146 to #133 - mitchellking (02/27/2013) [-]
Fps/second

lol
User avatar #130 to #128 - thunderkrux ONLINE (02/27/2013) [-]
No. If it was taking pictures faster than light, well you would have a series of really wierd and nonsensical images. This has a frame rate in the trillions. This also isn't just one recording. It's several. They flash the laser over and over and they record it several times and then layer it creating this one short video.
#134 to #130 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
false. its taking with a femto-second camera, its 1 take.
User avatar #140 to #134 - MrZoom (02/27/2013) [-]
Almost. It is indeed a femto-second camera, but it is many takes spliced together.
Watch the video from comment #120
#136 to #128 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
sorry but all the people who answered this including OP are wrong the picture was captures at 1 trillion frames per second then doctored so we could see the light waves with our naked eye.
#99 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
Light is invisible until its reflected off something into your eyeball, you cant see, or photograph light moving because the photon of light would have to be emitting more light, and that **** don't slide in the world of physics.
#158 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
Remember Sun-Baby from Teletubbies? I just realised, it's their God.
Sun-Baby watches over them but why is it always laughing? You see it created the Tele-Verse and The Teletubbies. They live freely and happily but everyday when that Sun-Baby rises up, it's not laughing because it's happy to see it's creation at work, no, Sun-Baby is plotting their destruction. They have sinned and gone against the Tele-Bible. Tinky-Winky was gay, an affront to Sun-Baby God, it clearly states that in the Tele-Bible. They ignored Sun-Baby, forgetting it was what forged their existence. Sun-Baby was angered and destroyed the Tele-Verse. This is what happens when you ignore our God. Do you want to end up like the Teletubbies? PRAISE GOD!
Teletubby Apocalypse, it happened. It was a full on Tele-Caust, it was brutal. You try to deny it but we all know what happened.
DAMN YOU SUN-BABY AND YOUR SADISTIC TUBBY SLAUGHTERING! HOW CAN YOU SMILE ABOUT THIS? DO YOU HAVE NO SOUL SUN-BABY!
User avatar #42 - amegaara (02/27/2013) [-]
why the hell is everyone thinking the camera is moving faster than light speed you can clearly see that the camera is stationary in the gif
#20 - heafi (02/27/2013) [-]
There is one aspect of slomo photography that always confuses me.    
Shouldn't it be impossible to take so many pictures per second, because to slow it down so much, parts of the camera would have to move faster than light (which is impossible).   
   
Or did they just make photos of multple tries and put them togehter?
There is one aspect of slomo photography that always confuses me.
Shouldn't it be impossible to take so many pictures per second, because to slow it down so much, parts of the camera would have to move faster than light (which is impossible).

Or did they just make photos of multple tries and put them togehter?
User avatar #21 to #20 - allamericandude (02/27/2013) [-]
It's not really a trillion frames per second, it's just a very clever simulation. And you don't need fast moving parts, you just need a very precise timing mechanism. The video of the bottle wasn't taken all at once. The bottle is lit with a laser that fires very short pulses, and the camera is triggered to take a picture of these pulses--but it only captures a [nearly] one dimensional horizontal strip of the entire scene. As more pulses are fired, the camera pans down and completes the image.

That's my botched explanation, at least. Here's a proper article about it:
www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/is-this-really-one-trillion-frames-per-second/
#22 to #21 - heafi (02/27/2013) [-]
Thanks for the link.   
So it's like I thought, they actually film multiple tries. But because they know the right frequency they can still easily shoot all their pics in order.   
   
(also, laught at the article mentioning the camera can't film a bullet colliding with a wall, like my pic)
Thanks for the link.
So it's like I thought, they actually film multiple tries. But because they know the right frequency they can still easily shoot all their pics in order.

(also, laught at the article mentioning the camera can't film a bullet colliding with a wall, like my pic)
#155 - alucardshellhound (02/27/2013) [-]
**alucardshellhound rolled a random image posted in comment #51 at Wingardium Pubertyosa! **
User avatar #188 to #155 - woofman ONLINE (03/05/2013) [-]
LEVIO SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
#110 - thatguyuknowtheone (02/27/2013) [-]
calling shenanigans want sauce
#111 to #110 - anon (02/27/2013) [-]
watch?v=nkbr-FItV00
User avatar #113 to #111 - thatguyuknowtheone (02/27/2013) [-]
thanks anon it makes more sense to see it in water because it is slower
#157 - RulerOfTrolls (02/27/2013) [-]
It's called Femto photography, it can also be used to "see" round corners, there was a TED talk on it.
User avatar #108 - microfan **User deleted account** (02/27/2013) [-]
I saw this last year on TED and I was amazed
[ 158 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)