It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists create camera which can capture 100 billion fps

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
World’s fastest 2-D camera may enable new scientific discoveries



A team of biomedical engineers at Washington University in St. Louis, led by Lihong Wang, PhD, the Gene K. Beare Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering, has developed the world’s fastest receive-only 2-D camera, a device that can capture events up to 100 billion frames per second.

That’s orders of magnitude faster than any current receive-only ultrafast imaging techniques, which are limited by on-chip storage and electronic readout speed to operations of about 10 million frames per second.


Source

That`s just mind-boggling.

I bet a lot of valuable things can be done with that technique.




posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
That's crazy. Truly amazing... I wonder what mysteries we'll solve... And what questions those solutions will create...



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
So, how long until we get light speed?



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
So, how long until we get light speed?


You're a few light years behind, my friend.

www.youtube.com...
edit on PMpAmerica/ChicagoFri, 05 Dec 2014 23:16:27 -060031uFri, 05 Dec 2014 23:16:27 -0600America/Chicago by Aperture because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aperture

Broken video links at the speed of internet =)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aperture

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
So, how long until we get light speed?


You're a few light years behind, my friend.

www.youtube.com...
Yes not only has it been posted 6 times already, but the FPS claim is a hoax, as we learn from watching the video, where he admits it's impossible to image an event at 100 billion frames per second because there's not enough light. Then he explains how he cheated, so he can make that misleading claim.

The photography around corners is actually the more interesting part of that video.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   
There's a philosophy in Japan there is no known accurate English translation for the phrase the closest one is "Let the mystery be the mystery".



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Aperture

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
So, how long until we get light speed?


You're a few light years behind, my friend.

www.youtube.com...
Yes not only has it been posted 6 times already, but the FPS claim is a hoax, as we learn from watching the video, where he admits it's impossible to image an event at 100 billion frames per second because there's not enough light. Then he explains how he cheated, so he can make that misleading claim.

The photography around corners is actually the more interesting part of that video.

Personally, I wouldn't use such harsh words as "hoax" or "misleading" with regards to this experiment. It's a genuine and valid technique, which has been used in other slow-motion videos, although never to such extent. That guy is a respectable and brilliant MIT researcher. newsoffice.mit.edu...

~~~

With regard to the OP, what is a "receive-only" camera?
edit on 6-12-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
For the 100 billion fps claim in the video I replied to, I don't think misleading is too strong a word, and hoax may be pushing it but I do think it's a self-revealed hoax if you watch the video where even by his own explanation he's only simulating 100 billion fps.

This new claim is more solid, and based on a different technique. The "receive only" reference is clarified in the abstract of the paper:

www.nature.com...

akin to traditional photography, CUP is receive-only, and so does not need the specialized active illumination required by other single-shot ultrafast imagers2, 3. As a result, CUP can image a variety of luminescent—such as fluorescent or bioluminescent—objects.
If you use active illumination on luminescent sources, it doesn't work to well...think of trying to take a flash-illuminated picture of a laser light show...the flash wouldn't illuminate the laser lights...you need receive only (no flash or other illumination) to record that type of imagery.

Also he distinguishes his technique from the technique in the video I replied to, by stating it's "non-repetitive" (The technique in the video is of course, repetitive and that's why it's sort of a hoaxed claim).


Here we demonstrate a two-dimensional dynamic imaging technique, compressed ultrafast photography (CUP), which can capture non-repetitive time-evolving events at up to 10^11 frames per second.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: BornAgainAlien


Even IF we could have a cam at 100 billion fps, what good would it be if our computer monitors doesn't match, and stay at 60 or 120 Hz refresh rate?

We'll be only viewing one frame out of 833,333,333...



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Slow motion man, you record a few billions fps but you replay at 60 fps making something that happen in fantoseconds play in seconds



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Good point.

Better have a hell of a graphical card for the playback, though. And a hell of a memory capacity, too - 100 billions frames per seconds!



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Indigent

Good point.

Better have a hell of a graphical card for the playback, though. And a hell of a memory capacity, too - 100 billions frames per seconds!


Yeah -- but your playback computer memory does not need to store 100 billion frames (or even the 1 Trillion frames in the TED video linked by ATS member 'Aperture') because you're not looking at one second of time. The videos that are captured only show a very, very small fraction of a second of time. We see each frame played back at a normal frame rate...

...In fact, that's how you get slow motion: You play back a high frame rate on your playback device at a normal frame rate. The playback device doesn't know the difference -- it's just playing frames. It doesn't really care how many frames per second it was originally filmed at.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
This picture was taken *after* about a microsecond of a dynamic nuclear event.
Since the frame is clearly frozen and in fairly sharp focus exposure time would need to be 1000 times less than that.

More recently say 40 years ago Los Alamos developed shutter systems for satellite security that operated at this speed.


edit on 7-12-2014 by Slichter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join