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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Henley, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    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
     
    Mike Henley, Feb 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Mike Henley" <> writes:

    > 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".


    For one thing, you need something quite brightly illuminated at that
    shutter speed -- especially if the T-number of the lens/shutter system
    used is anywhere near where I think it would be.

    > Enjoy
    >
    > http://www.rapidnewswire.com/atom.htm


    Those pictures (I've got at least the first two in one of Edgerton's
    books, too) are among the scariest things I've seen in my life.
    There's something about the clean simple form of the fireball at the
    various early sizes.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Henley

    Charles Guest

    On 14 Feb 2006 18:28:12 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:

    >"Mike Henley" <> writes:
    >
    >> 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".

    >
    >For one thing, you need something quite brightly illuminated at that
    >shutter speed -- especially if the T-number of the lens/shutter system
    >used is anywhere near where I think it would be.
    >
    >> Enjoy
    >>
    >> http://www.rapidnewswire.com/atom.htm

    >
    >Those pictures (I've got at least the first two in one of Edgerton's
    >books, too) are among the scariest things I've seen in my life.
    >There's something about the clean simple form of the fireball at the
    >various early sizes.



    Google Images has a bunch
     
    Charles, Feb 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Mike Henley

    Frank ess Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > "Mike Henley" <> writes:
    >
    >> 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".

    >
    > For one thing, you need something quite brightly illuminated at that
    > shutter speed -- especially if the T-number of the lens/shutter
    > system
    > used is anywhere near where I think it would be.
    >
    >> Enjoy
    >>
    >> http://www.rapidnewswire.com/atom.htm

    >
    > Those pictures (I've got at least the first two in one of Edgerton's
    > books, too) are among the scariest things I've seen in my life.
    > There's something about the clean simple form of the fireball at the
    > various early sizes.


    "guide wires"?

    "Joshua tree's"? What?

    I don't want to look at "About Us". They might have the same college
    degree I have...

    Edgerton certainly taught us a great deal about what really happens.
    Thank you, Doc.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Feb 15, 2006
    #4
  5. Mike Henley

    Pat Guest

    What I'm really impressed with is that you were able to zoom back that
    quick!! :)
     
    Pat, Feb 15, 2006
    #5
  6. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Pat wrote:
    > What I'm really impressed with is that you were able to zoom back that
    > quick!! :)


    But of course, it's a "10 foot lens"!
     
    Mike Henley, Feb 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Mike Henley

    Rich Guest

    On 14 Feb 2006 15:09:03 -0800, "Mike Henley" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >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


    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.
    CCDs/CMOS are a problem when it comes to rapid firing as
    they are limited to their read-out speeds. In order to take
    images at really high speeds, you need some kind of
    shutter mechanism. A spinning disk with a hole in it
    and some kind of synch mechanism.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Feb 15, 2006
    #7
  8. 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/rapatronic_photographs.htm
    --
    Andy Williams
     
    Andy Williams, Feb 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Mike Henley

    Matt Clara Guest

    Interesting--I posted a link to these two days ago.

    --
    Regards,
    Matt Clara
    www.mattclara.com
    "Mike Henley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    >
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Mike Henley

    Matt Clara Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > On 14 Feb 2006 15:09:03 -0800, "Mike Henley" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >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

    >
    > 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.
    > CCDs/CMOS are a problem when it comes to rapid firing as
    > they are limited to their read-out speeds. In order to take
    > images at really high speeds, you need some kind of
    > shutter mechanism. A spinning disk with a hole in it
    > and some kind of synch mechanism.
    > -Rich


    For discussion on the type of shutter used in taking these images refer
    to the thread "Was this taken with a Leica?" from two days back.

    --
    Regards,
    Matt Clara
    www.mattclara.com
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Mike Henley

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:19:31 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Andy Williams
    <> 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/rapatronic_photographs.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 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Feb 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Mike Henley

    Annika1980 Guest

    >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.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 15, 2006
    #12
  13. In article <>, Ed Ruf
    <> writes
    >On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:19:31 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Andy Williams
    ><> 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/rapatronic_photographs.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 pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 15, 2006
    #13
  14. 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
     
    Andy Williams, Feb 15, 2006
    #14
  15. 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
     
    Stanley Krute, Feb 15, 2006
    #15
  16. Mike Henley

    Rich Guest

    On 15 Feb 2006 09:42:52 -0800, "Annika1980" <>
    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
     
    Rich, Feb 16, 2006
    #16
  17. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On 15 Feb 2006 09:42:52 -0800, "Annika1980" <>
    > 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)
     
    William Graham, Feb 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
     
    Mike Henley, Feb 16, 2006
    #18
  19. 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
     
    Andy Williams, Feb 16, 2006
    #19
  20. Mike Henley

    Peter Irwin Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm 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.


    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.
    --
     
    Peter Irwin, Feb 16, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page