Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > "The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"

Reply
Thread Tools

"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"

 
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2006
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:19:31 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Andy Williams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how they did those shots, but there have been
>> cameras that have used things like spinning octagonal or
>> multi-sided mirrors that could "flash" exposures across several
>> feet of filmstock in a fraction of a second. For slower (but still
>> fast) shooting, cameras have been equipped with high speed
>> motor winders that took movie film at a high rate of speed,
>> thousands of frames per second.

>
>Mechanical devices are orders of magnitude too slow to achieve these
>results. Repeat of a post to r.p.e.35mm:
>
>Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Probably a high speed cine camera, eg, 1000's of frames per second with
>> exposure times on the order of 1/4000 to 1/10,000

>
>Exposure time was much less, on the order of ten nanoseconds. Google
>rapatronic. Each camera took one frame. A starting point:
>
>http://simplethinking.com/home/rapat...hotographs.htm


Another type of device used for quick exposures is an image converter
camera. I used a Navy surplus 1950 EG&G one in grad school. IIRC, the
framing module would do three 10nS frames at microsecond spacing.
For the theory see, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0950-7671/38/3/306

__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
http://EdwardGRuf.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2006
>What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

>But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
>blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".


I enjoy a photographic challenge, but that's about the last thing I'd
ever wanna shoot.
They ain't got a lens long enough.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ed Ruf
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:19:31 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Andy Williams
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how they did those shots, but there have been
>>> cameras that have used things like spinning octagonal or
>>> multi-sided mirrors that could "flash" exposures across several
>>> feet of filmstock in a fraction of a second. For slower (but still
>>> fast) shooting, cameras have been equipped with high speed
>>> motor winders that took movie film at a high rate of speed,
>>> thousands of frames per second.

>>
>>Mechanical devices are orders of magnitude too slow to achieve these
>>results. Repeat of a post to r.p.e.35mm:
>>
>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Probably a high speed cine camera, eg, 1000's of frames per second with
>>> exposure times on the order of 1/4000 to 1/10,000

>>
>>Exposure time was much less, on the order of ten nanoseconds. Google
>>rapatronic. Each camera took one frame. A starting point:
>>
>>http://simplethinking.com/home/rapat...hotographs.htm

>
>Another type of device used for quick exposures is an image converter
>camera. I used a Navy surplus 1950 EG&G one in grad school. IIRC, the
>framing module would do three 10nS frames at microsecond spacing.
>For the theory see, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0950-7671/38/3/306
>

Indeed, and here is a more recent example:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2171151224.html

There are solid state versions available now as well, which are capable
of being synchronised with a high speed laser pulse to illuminate a
depth of less than a metre at ranges of many km, enabling a full 3D
structure to be visualised.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2006
Ed Ruf wrote:

> Andy Williams wrote:


> > Exposure time was much less, on the order of ten nanoseconds. Google
> > rapatronic.


> Another type of device used for quick exposures is an image converter
> camera. I used a Navy surplus 1950 EG&G one in grad school.


Know what the E in EG&G stands for? Edgerton. The inventor of
rapatronic photography among other things. Very interesting company.
--
Andy Williams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stanley Krute
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2006
Very interesting thread. The bomb images are haunting
weird alien strange beautiful horrific etc.

I'd love to find some real detail on the rapatronic cameras.
Diagrams, schematics, papers RE: "here's how it works". Googling
came up with bupkis in this regard. Anyone got some good links ?

-- stan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
On 15 Feb 2006 09:42:52 -0800, "Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>>What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

>
>>But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
>>blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".

>
>I enjoy a photographic challenge, but that's about the last thing I'd
>ever wanna shoot.
>They ain't got a lens long enough.


Nuclear explosions are beautiful. You can't help but be impressed
when they turn a few pounds of substance into that much energy.
For those interested, check out the movie, "Trinity and Beyond"
the best film made about the subject.
-Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006

"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 15 Feb 2006 09:42:52 -0800, "Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>>What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

>>
>>>But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
>>>blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".

>>
>>I enjoy a photographic challenge, but that's about the last thing I'd
>>ever wanna shoot.
>>They ain't got a lens long enough.

>
> Nuclear explosions are beautiful. You can't help but be impressed
> when they turn a few pounds of substance into that much energy.
> For those interested, check out the movie, "Trinity and Beyond"
> the best film made about the subject.
> -Rich


I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
picture at one, one millionth of a second. Also, I don't think that kind of
speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much brighter
than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking a
picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.
It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but the
ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the shutter
be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to record
it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
answer either question. IOW, they don't need that kind of speed to freeze
the motion, and even if they did, they don't have any film fast enough to be
able to record the event at that speed. We certainly don't have any film
fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we? Most high
speed photographs are frozen in time by the strobe light, and not by the
shutter. (Bullets going through eggs, and the like)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Henley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006

Matt Clara wrote:
> Interesting--I posted a link to these two days ago.
>


I'm sorry, it just didn't occur to me that a thread with the title "Was
this taken with a Leica?" was about an atomic blast. Regards.

> --
> Regards,
> Matt Clara
> www.mattclara.com
> "Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> >
> > I'm back, did you miss me?
> >
> > What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?
> >
> > But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
> > blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".
> >
> > Enjoy
> >
> > http://www.rapidnewswire.com/atom.htm
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
William Graham wrote:

> I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
> picture at one, one millionth of a second.


It is not a shutter in the ordinary mechanical sense, of course. It's
an electronic effect. Google Kerr effect.

> Also, I don't think that kind of
> speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much brighter
> than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking a
> picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.


You are ignoring the inverse square law. The Sun is 93 million miles
away. A nuclear explosion can be photographed from seven miles away.
The fireball is about 60 - 100 million degrees C, 10,000 times hotter
and about 10^16 times brighter than the surface of the sun.

> It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but the
> ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the shutter
> be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to record
> it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
> answer either question. IOW, they don't need that kind of speed to freeze
> the motion, and even if they did, they don't have any film fast enough to be
> able to record the event at that speed. We certainly don't have any film
> fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we? Most high
> speed photographs are frozen in time by the strobe light, and not by the
> shutter. (Bullets going through eggs, and the like)


You're not appreciating the violence of a nuclear explosion. You
could use Ektar 25 and 10^-8 s exposure and get perfect results.
--
Andy Williams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Irwin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm William Graham <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
> picture at one, one millionth of a second.


Two crossed polarizers with something in between which twists
polarization in response to electricity or magnetism.
The Kerr cell is the most common example. Someone posted that
these shots used a Faraday shutter which is similar in concept.

> Also, I don't think that kind of
> speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much brighter
> than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking a
> picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.


The sun is nearly half a million times brighter than sunlight reflected from
a grey card. Staring directly at the sun can cause permanent damage
to your eyes in a remarkably short time.

> It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but the
> ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the shutter
> be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to record
> it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
> answer either question.


Atomic explosions are darned quick, especially at the very start.
A small atomic bomb can produce a 90 foot fireball in 1/10000th
of a second. If you want to freeze that fireball one millionth
of a second isn't too fast at all.

This was all done half a century ago. It worked fine.

> We certainly don't have any film
> fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we?


If you were to shoot the disc of the sun on ISO 100 slide film
at f/16 and one millionth of a second, it would still show
as a nearly clear spot on the film. The sun is insanely bright.

Peter.
--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuji does multiple exposures Bill Digital Photography 9 12-01-2003 09:41 AM
exif information and bulb exposures. (where did they put it?) (canon 300d) Karl Palsson Digital Photography 3 10-09-2003 07:01 AM
Combining exposures for increased dynamic range? Antti Heiskanen Digital Photography 41 10-07-2003 01:54 PM
Snappixx v0.50 (with longer exposures) is now out! Maurice Digital Photography 0 10-03-2003 06:35 AM
Multiple Exposures w/ DigiCams? Crash Digital Photography 3 07-12-2003 09:04 AM



Advertisments