+boxxer221 people do not move/react with the speed of light, so to see a facial expression of "shit i fucked up" few thousands of fps will be more than enough.
Adrian M What? Now you don't be such a Jack's Ass. I am all for invisible sandwiches. I was making a slight towards this irreverent Administration that has bankrupted this Nation and still doling out that dough for stuff that we really don't need to be focusing on. Have you not seen the worthless studies that they have been funding just so some University can make some money? Our Institutions of Higher Learning have become nothing more than businesses that have become idea boxes on how to make money of the next biggest idea. Hence the reason that the Fed is demanding that everyone be college educated. The more kids that go to college, the more money colleges make and the more chances that they have at finding the next Thneed. That is not learning. That is not advancing mankind. That is profiteering. Investment in trade schools would serve this Nation much better with skilled labor and provide the People good careers. Somehow, I don't think there is going to be much work at the invisible sandwich factory.
That is THE MOST IMPRESSIVE device I've ever seen. It literally lets you see light as it moves! I hope those depictions of what this camera is doing aren't just simulations showing what it will be able to do when it is fully developed, but rather actual video footage taken from the camera. Just curious, HOW do you even make electronics that work fast enough for this, since electric current is limited to moving at the speed of light?
La camara no es optica, de hecho no es una camara es una maquina diseñada para seguir ese pulso de luz laser. pero las imagenes son de lo que esta sucediendo en tiempo real,. NO es simulacion, lo que ocurre es que hacer fotogramas a tanta velocidad tiene un coste, solo puede hacer mediciones de un plano del espacio, el haz de luz esta redirigido para ir completamente perpendicular a los sensores "camara" a traves de una rendija y un campo electromagnetico y la orientacion de dicha rendija es la que delimita el plano espacial . Para convertirlo a imagenes ttridimensionales se ayuda creo que se ayudan de una camara optica y un espejo que se mueve angularmente para completar la escena. Todo eso hay que procesarlo digitalmente para conseguir un video. Piensa que opticamente seria imposible captar el movimiento de la luz. Tienes que utilizar algo o algun sistema mas rapido. Los fotones que quieres pillar van a ir igual de rapido que tu. Sin poder correr mas que ellos no los vas poder pillar nunca
Walter Benedette Junior I'm pretty sure that would force the photon/universe to chose a state so there shouldn't be any more information into that other than what we already have. But it would be cool to watch
They didn't use camera's, they used sensors. It more than likely was a 3d computer model that reacted in relation to the data that was collected. The only way to reach 1,000,000,000,000fps realistically.
+Paintball mag You really add to a conversation and make all the other bulbs in the box shine brighter. I'm sure your mother is proud. Keep up the good work that you're doing to make the world a better place.
That is so hypnotic. The bottle displays the duality of the pulse so well. It's obviously a point source in the clear portion, but as it enters the label its wave front becomes clear, only to coalesce back into a point again.
you could maybe work this into some version of the double slit experiment comma but it wouldn't affect the results or anything. the issue in the double slit experiment is the Observer Paradox - basically that you can't make precise measurements of a given particle at the quantum scale, partly because the particles seem to exist as slightly amorphous probability clouds until we cause something measurable to interact w/ them it doesn't relate to how quick our measuring devices are, far as I can tell, b/c if we watched the particle, that would still be the observed condition & collapse the wave (plus, I think the electrons or other particles you could use are so light that the laser would risk knocking them right off the table)
+Brent Yeah, I know that intellectually, It's so hard to understand it. This duality of particles(wave and particle) is such a hard concept to get your head around. The collapse of the wave function is totally strange. I think someone said that if you think you understand quantum physics, you really don't understand QP.
My understanding is that we COULD, but it would be entirely unrevealing. We would see the illumination of the pulse from the light source slowly "move" along the video, where you see the 1 cm pulse width momentarily light up the backdrop in the familiar harmonic visual pattern that you're familiar with. Remember, this isn't a conventional movie camera with just some impossibly high FPS. It *simulates* an ultra-high FPS bc the scene is (a) static and (b) has lighting effect that is precisely repeated via precise illumination burst (i.e. there's a presumption that the same time-space lighting effect unfoldment is reproduced each time -- thus the video capture process is possible only if it captures a reality that happens to be de-multiplex-able in space-time). The tip off is that it requires its "slowly rotating" mirror for the process to werk.
amazing... 8:30 best shot IMO. the delayed reflection in the mirror. reminder that light is physical matter. you never see the light beam directly, only the light that is reflected back to the camera. awe and wonder.
Illya Chabarov There is a variation of the name Andreas in German but I'm not sure how to spell it. Although you are right in some ways, Andreas comes from Ancient Greek and Latin
I was wondering the same thing. The higher the FPS the faster the shutter has to move. Which means that the exposure time is much less. I had the opportunity to use a high speed camera for some testing for a robotics team I'm on. We were running tests at
***** I don't know if there is code in the UA-cam back-end for that ... but none of the videos use 120 fps ... :P And currently DSL can't catch 1080p with 120 fps probably .. I am too bored to make calculations to see if they can download so many frames in a sec .
***** Yeah ... because "trolling" and "bad jokes" are too extreme for you mate ... don't you have something better to do instead of insulting people for unknown reason ? You too little idiot ? *****
***** Yep I am ... what's your arguments about that ? You're stupid because you don't have something better to do than just insulting someone ... I'm stupid because I have better things to do than videos for "How to play BF4" videos and insulting people without reason and arguments ... so your level of stupidity may be much higher than mine, isnt it ?
***** And that's why you're stupid, thank you for finally saying some arguments ... but I told you before that it was a bad joke and nothing more man ... the fuck ? I thought everyone on the comments would be like "Wow such good joke" ... and you take it serious ? I study IT since I was 12 ... I don't need your explanation over the topic for this shit ...
this demonstrates the particle wave duality... it moves along a path... so it is a particle... that radiates in all sides from the origin point.... so the wave calc applies on this part of the effect that consists of two
ok, so you are viewing light passing over objects, but here is a catch... If you need light to interact with the camera in order to view anything, what are we actually seeing here?
Light is way too fast for there to be any noticeable difference (at least for any sort of current machine we have, or that will even be likely to exist ever). Both would look like light moving pas a stationary object. That said, what you're describing could not even be done properly. The method being used here uses the same technique as "stop motion", so if a moving object was to be used, it would need to have absurdly precise activation times and trajectories such that it would be in a consistent position for each stop motion frame taken. If one was to use a gun, this process would require shooting the gun thousands of times at the same spot with femtosecond-level actuation timing accuracy which I suspect might be impossible with current tech, although in theory it's at least possible (if not already possible). Like I already said though, it would be completely pointless though because a speeding bullet is just like a stationary object to light, and you could get the same effect by just suspending a bullet in the air with a string.
So if it can capture the speed of light how exactly did you manage to make the light that was on the objects go in small waves like that? Did you take a flashlight and turn it on and off at the litteral speed of light?
That is indeed a VERY fast camera. But not really capturing MOVING light cause that would be impossible as photons have to hit the cameras sensors in the first place. so this is the best you can get. more like a scan
ohhhhh the burn effect comes after the position of the small particle it seems... there is a small air sream in front of the effect comming of the even smaller emitting particle it seems to me... this might be because of friction in air... this effect would look different in a vacumm i think the distance between particle and effect woiuld be shorter or longer.. visible thrue the longer or shorter front tail... i frooze the video on 5:51
2:23 looks like a fake…How cam see these scattering cloud of photons around scene, if this cloud of photons does not arriving in to cam yet? WTF he explaned it?
0:14 Oh, he said photons! I was just about to say "There's no way in hell a football can go that fast!". That accent is so awesome! Sounds like a text to speech machine.
10:28 is an amazing example. light source if coming from the left, hits a surface on the right, you can see the photons change directions! they should try using odd non-everyday objects like cylindrical cones of different degrees.
Maybe there should be an option to upload or display a video with more FPS, but for 95% of UA-cam videos 30FPS is perfect and in fact better than 60FPS because 60FPS would buffer 2x slower, it would suck.
Don't under stand this at all. How can you see a photon that is moving 'across' your line of vision? The photon has to go into the camera lens for the camera to see it.
please do the two slit experiment and film it. is there a way to show the fundamental experiment in quantum mechanics in slo-mo. that would be awesome. although i guess you could never film a single photon.
just clarification, not the act of observing it with your eyes breaks it, its just the way in which we have to manipulate the experiment in order to observe it breaks it.
The ability to actually view a photon wave could be incredibly useful for medical diagnostics, along with things we haven't even thought of yet. How did you came to your "money wasted" position, especially considering the relatively small expenditure in question?
This opens up the possibility to use improved light scatter instead of ultra sound for tissue imaging in the medical field. Hardly a waste of money. One day you'll be glad that the new imaging technologies caught a disease early.
Cameron Burticus You aren't WATCHING it at a trillion frames per second. You are WATCHING it at 30 fps. It was CAPTURED at a trillion frames per second - - and slowed WAY DOWN to 30 fps. By the way, the human eye can see far more than 24 fps. Where did you get this number? There are videos right here on youtube that playback at either 30 fps or 60 fps - and you can tell the difference. 60 fps looks all soap-opera-y. The human eye can differentiate between frame rates up to about 150 fps.
Hi, And thanks for your upload. Can you tell me if you are viewing single ‘flecks’ of light, what is all around that particular light? Or is it the machine focusing one that array and if the focus is moved the tiniest fraction it would show the light rays either above or below the ones seen in the first picture?
The proof is really at 8:30. You can actually see the object illuminated, but not its reflection, and then the reflection illuminated, but not the object, thus demonstrating light captured in "mid flight". That's awesome!
The people who comment things like "it would take two years with that framerate". Well, that's on a basis that the actual "tape" is one second long. Which it is not. It is the length of fotons traveling through a short distance. Which again is waaaaaaaaay shorter than 1 second :-)
Silly question. With the coke bottle, the dam goes very slow. Look at the desk and you see the illumination on the desk keep pace with the bean. How is that possible (I suspect it is to do with the way that camera works) still that roles me. I think it is the fact the for the camera to see the beam it needs to have travelled to it. Then why is the desk lit with scattered light at that distance when the camera appears to be further away. Again this troubles me. Nice video and still adds value.
Light is a wave. As this wave beam travels it lights everything that is on it's way horizontaly but at the same time it is weaker the further it is from the center of a beam.
I am wrong if i say that the wave of light we can see here, was, for real, approximately in x2? where x2 was equal to " x1+d " and where d=distance that separate the wave of light from the camera objective and x1=the position of the light wave that we see?
Osvaldo Paniccia This is exactly what I was thinking. If the camera were filming from a different location the propagation of the light pulse it captured would be different. Because as you say, the photons have to travel to the camera so that distance matters
Light pulse? So is that capturing the speed of light? When the light turns off the last light particles are seen? As well as the first light particles? And does this mean light is unobservably like water particles or dark matter “particles” ?? making substance?
and it also seems the speed of the particle has less refracting influence than i suspected... the refraction happens but keeps moving along the same path as the origin most ahead particle after it widdens it keeps moving along with it..
no, because for the heelberg uncertaintty principle, is applied to a single particle, not a huge blas as seen here, you see a blast of ultra high slowed motion of light, so it wont change the direction, or the position of the photon, as is a blast of phtons...
why does the pulse of light fade out? I know it's a pulse. Which has a beginning and end to it. But what happens to the particle of light to make it fade out?? Where does it go? Why doesn't light partical stay lit?
When it goes past the label is it turning into a wave or are we seeing the scattering and refraction of the big ball of photos onto the label, like the corona of a light bulb. Or is it literally traveling as a big "mass" when we're looking and then a wave when we cant.
I dont know why they said "light particles" here cant be seen a single photon... but can be seen the time light takes to reflex from one source to another one... really interesting, but would be interesting to see for example a balloon filled with water and suspended being shot by a laser (while a light iluminates from one side the scene) with a black background... Would love to see how light moves from the light source to the balloon, then it explodes by the laser and then the suspended water falls while generate bubbles which would make a great effect with the light.
But how do you see light moving when the thing that you use to see is the light itself? That's like saying you can hear a sound wave moving in the distance.
Not sure if you noticed this, but after the expanding "bubble" of light hits the tomato thing, the tomato thing stays glowing well after the "light bubble" continues toward the wall. Photons bouncing around inside opaque matter? Food for thought. Wait, wtf was that rainbow afterwards
Someone explain the reflection @7:54 in the middle of the bottle. If you film at lightspeed, than light doesn't have time to go there and make the relection.
This is really cool. Notice on the Coke bottle one how the parts of the image farther away from the camera show the band of light farther back along the bottle, because it takes longer to get to the lens from there. _However_, we're not looking at individual photons. We're looking at an individual laser light pulse composed of a whole bunch of them (the thing about photons that you only observe them in one place so you need a whole bunch of them to make an image) Still, fascinating.
on a hard drive ? Resolution is quite low. So 1 frame will cost them about 50-75 kB. That means that 1 sec video will worth about 50 TB (for 1 000 000 000)
With this camera we will be able to see the exact point someone knows they fucked up.
***** heh
+Marc0175 you ruined the joke
+boxxer221 XD
😂😂😂😂😂
+boxxer221 people do not move/react with the speed of light, so to see a facial expression of "shit i fucked up" few thousands of fps will be more than enough.
wow!!!! Now we can see Bruce Lee punching!
Yes! It is just kidding.
+Brayan Carmona The fact you made that long ass comment to a joke is troubling.
+Wilker Acevedo Still wouldn't be fast enough to see Chuck Norris though.
+LOSS444 bruce ass raped chuck
+sapher974 ...and he liked it so much he became a Texas Ranger!
We can have a camera that than observe light moving at 186,000 mps, but the police still can't get a clear photo of a criminal at a shopping centre.
Seriously your just trying to be a joker. I mean you don't actually think that way right?
That's because it's the shopping mall who buys the cameras, not the police
william cann how dumb are you it’s obviously bait and it was from 3 years ago
LOL exposted
*186,282 mps*
Now film the double slit experiment with that camera. But when nobody's looking.
What?
That is exactly what I thought... :D
Oh sweet, I'm not alone!
What does it mean?
Google it.
They should be focused on real science like inventing an invisible sandwich.. so when you eat it everyone thinks you're crazy...
Have you not contacted the US Government? This Administration is handing out money hand over fist for stellar ideas like yours.
Adrian M What? Now you don't be such a Jack's Ass. I am all for invisible sandwiches. I was making a slight towards this irreverent Administration that has bankrupted this Nation and still doling out that dough for stuff that we really don't need to be focusing on. Have you not seen the worthless studies that they have been funding just so some University can make some money? Our Institutions of Higher Learning have become nothing more than businesses that have become idea boxes on how to make money of the next biggest idea.
Hence the reason that the Fed is demanding that everyone be college educated. The more kids that go to college, the more money colleges make and the more chances that they have at finding the next Thneed. That is not learning. That is not advancing mankind. That is profiteering. Investment in trade schools would serve this Nation much better with skilled labor and provide the People good careers. Somehow, I don't think there is going to be much work at the invisible sandwich factory.
Adrian M You sure are a likable person.
Yeah, but when they eat those samiches exclusively for a year and still be alive...bitches start believin
Brian Clark Finally somebody got the reference....
That is THE MOST IMPRESSIVE device I've ever seen. It literally lets you see light as it moves! I hope those depictions of what this camera is doing aren't just simulations showing what it will be able to do when it is fully developed, but rather actual video footage taken from the camera. Just curious, HOW do you even make electronics that work fast enough for this, since electric current is limited to moving at the speed of light?
La camara no es optica, de hecho no es una camara es una maquina diseñada para seguir ese pulso de luz laser. pero las imagenes son de lo que esta sucediendo en tiempo real,. NO es simulacion, lo que ocurre es que hacer fotogramas a tanta velocidad tiene un coste, solo puede hacer mediciones de un plano del espacio, el haz de luz esta redirigido para ir completamente perpendicular a los sensores "camara" a traves de una rendija y un campo electromagnetico y la orientacion de dicha rendija es la que delimita el plano espacial . Para convertirlo a imagenes ttridimensionales se ayuda creo que se ayudan de una camara optica y un espejo que se mueve angularmente para completar la escena. Todo eso hay que procesarlo digitalmente para conseguir un video. Piensa que opticamente seria imposible captar el movimiento de la luz. Tienes que utilizar algo o algun sistema mas rapido. Los fotones que quieres pillar van a ir igual de rapido que tu. Sin poder correr mas que ellos no los vas poder pillar nunca
@@carlosmarcossaiz6659 but nothing is supposed to be faster than the speed of light
Playstation 4 gamers will come here thinking that's the FPS on their next big game.
+William Fenton underrated comment
+William Fenton
These xbox wouane traumatized players with their limited console at 30fps.
I'm hurt for you.
That's an understatement.
+John Doe #PCMasterRaceUnite lol
Can you use this on the double slits experiment with 1 photon shot through it?
curiosity killed the cat.....
If you fire one photon you won't see it, because it won't hit the lens, it will hit the plate behind the slits!
i have been fixing computers all days, i am not on youtube to think, i will cook that damn cat and make a " cat cooking video" on youtube.
not really, but dealing with users......
Walter Benedette Junior I'm pretty sure that would force the photon/universe to chose a state so there shouldn't be any more information into that other than what we already have. But it would be cool to watch
Its so weird to see waves of light. The effect is so disorienting; and it makes everything look like low-poly 3D computer models.
Ażula Arktändr lol yea. wonder why that is. The curiosities of life
welcome to the world of quantum physics!
They didn't use camera's, they used sensors. It more than likely was a 3d computer model that reacted in relation to the data that was collected. The only way to reach 1,000,000,000,000fps realistically.
+Paintball mag You really add to a conversation and make all the other bulbs in the box shine brighter. I'm sure your mother is proud. Keep up the good work that you're doing to make the world a better place.
Ażula Arktändr , well at least in not the only one who noticed that.
That is so hypnotic. The bottle displays the duality of the pulse so well. It's obviously a point source in the clear portion, but as it enters the label its wave front becomes clear, only to coalesce back into a point again.
Can this be done for the double slit experiment? I would love to see that.
+Donald Kjenstad (DonK) I don't think so. Look that: watch?v=TkJ_WgruM2g at 54:15
you could maybe work this into some version of the double slit experiment comma but it wouldn't affect the results or anything. the issue in the double slit experiment is the Observer Paradox - basically that you can't make precise measurements of a given particle at the quantum scale, partly because the particles seem to exist as slightly amorphous probability clouds until we cause something measurable to interact w/ them
it doesn't relate to how quick our measuring devices are, far as I can tell, b/c if we watched the particle, that would still be the observed condition & collapse the wave (plus, I think the electrons or other particles you could use are so light that the laser would risk knocking them right off the table)
+Brent Yeah, I know that intellectually, It's so hard to understand it. This duality of particles(wave and particle) is such a hard concept to get your head around. The collapse of the wave function is totally strange. I think someone said that if you think you understand quantum physics, you really don't understand QP.
what if there is nothing to actually understand?
My understanding is that we COULD, but it would be entirely unrevealing. We would see the illumination of the pulse from the light source slowly "move" along the video, where you see the 1 cm pulse width momentarily light up the backdrop in the familiar harmonic visual pattern that you're familiar with. Remember, this isn't a conventional movie camera with just some impossibly high FPS. It *simulates* an ultra-high FPS bc the scene is (a) static and (b) has lighting effect that is precisely repeated via precise illumination burst (i.e. there's a presumption that the same time-space lighting effect unfoldment is reproduced each time -- thus the video capture process is possible only if it captures a reality that happens to be de-multiplex-able in space-time). The tip off is that it requires its "slowly rotating" mirror for the process to werk.
amazing... 8:30 best shot IMO. the delayed reflection in the mirror. reminder that light is physical matter. you never see the light beam directly, only the light that is reflected back to the camera. awe and wonder.
why the white guy also sounds indian?
+hithummah cause he is Indian, Ramesh raskar.
He's greek his name is Andreas
+Andres Caceres The name Andreas is really common on northern europe and germany. So I would guess he is German
Illya Chabarov www.behindthename.com/name/andreas
Illya Chabarov There is a variation of the name Andreas in German but I'm not sure how to spell it. Although you are right in some ways, Andreas comes from Ancient Greek and Latin
I was wondering the same thing. The higher the FPS the faster the shutter has to move. Which means that the exposure time is much less. I had the opportunity to use a high speed camera for some testing for a robotics team I'm on. We were running tests at
now slow mo light travelling to a mirror
+Sim Tan That would be interesting
breaking the 4th wall
holy shit!!!
you mean dimension
At this frame rate, watching a bullet cross the screen would take several years.
is it a particle or is it a wave? what is the wave? Affected space time?
How the hell?...Way Cool!!!
It's an electromagnetic wave with wave/particle properties.
a spaceship one day will use this technology to scan the surface of unknown planets with nothing but flashes of light.
science you are truly awesome.
How you know dis?
Fake ... UA-cam has only 30-60fps available ...
***** I don't know if there is code in the UA-cam back-end for that ... but none of the videos use 120 fps ... :P And currently DSL can't catch 1080p with 120 fps probably .. I am too bored to make calculations to see if they can download so many frames in a sec .
***** +1
***** Yeah ... because "trolling" and "bad jokes" are too extreme for you mate ... don't you have something better to do instead of insulting people for unknown reason ? You too little idiot ? *****
***** Yep I am ... what's your arguments about that ?
You're stupid because you don't have something better to do than just insulting someone ...
I'm stupid because I have better things to do than videos for "How to play BF4" videos and insulting people without reason and arguments ...
so your level of stupidity may be much higher than mine, isnt it ?
***** And that's why you're stupid, thank you for finally saying some arguments ... but I told you before that it was a bad joke and nothing more man ... the fuck ? I thought everyone on the comments would be like "Wow such good joke" ... and you take it serious ? I study IT since I was 12 ... I don't need your explanation over the topic for this shit ...
this demonstrates the particle wave duality... it moves along a path... so it is a particle... that radiates in all sides from the origin point.... so the wave calc applies on this part of the effect that consists of two
ok, so you are viewing light passing over objects, but here is a catch... If you need light to interact with the camera in order to view anything, what are we actually seeing here?
Id really like to see light travel over a high speed moving object in contrast to a stationary object.
Light is way too fast for there to be any noticeable difference (at least for any sort of current machine we have, or that will even be likely to exist ever). Both would look like light moving pas a stationary object.
That said, what you're describing could not even be done properly. The method being used here uses the same technique as "stop motion", so if a moving object was to be used, it would need to have absurdly precise activation times and trajectories such that it would be in a consistent position for each stop motion frame taken. If one was to use a gun, this process would require shooting the gun thousands of times at the same spot with femtosecond-level actuation timing accuracy which I suspect might be impossible with current tech, although in theory it's at least possible (if not already possible).
Like I already said though, it would be completely pointless though because a speeding bullet is just like a stationary object to light, and you could get the same effect by just suspending a bullet in the air with a string.
3:20 so this is what they mean when they say everything we see is just light reflecting off of stuff! Wow!!!
this just simulation.
Just like regular video.
So if it can capture the speed of light how exactly did you manage to make the light that was on the objects go in small waves like that? Did you take a flashlight and turn it on and off at the litteral speed of light?
That is indeed a VERY fast camera. But not really capturing MOVING light cause that would be impossible as photons have to hit the cameras sensors in the first place. so this is the best you can get. more like a scan
Jason Ortiz the photons already hit the cameras sensors before they actually flew past the front of the camera
They shot a laser not a photon
Laser emit photon
but can it run crysis?
WHY YOU NO UPLOUD IN 60 FPS ohh the video is from 2012... ok sry
bc slow motion is slower played on a 30 or 24 fps timeline.
ohhhhh the burn effect comes after the position of the small particle it seems... there is a small air sream in front of the effect comming of the even smaller emitting particle it seems to me... this might be because of friction in air... this effect would look different in a vacumm i think the distance between particle and effect woiuld be shorter or longer.. visible thrue the longer or shorter front tail...
i frooze the video on 5:51
2:23 looks like a fake…How cam see these scattering cloud of photons around scene, if this cloud of photons does not arriving in to cam yet? WTF he explaned it?
He litteraly shot Photons right next to the camera idiot
0:14 Oh, he said photons! I was just about to say "There's no way in hell a football can go that fast!". That accent is so awesome! Sounds like a text to speech machine.
so the camera shutters faster than the speed of light? ok...
rewatch the video, actually listen to what the scientist explains, then double check if your question has any logic...
10:28 is an amazing example. light source if coming from the left, hits a surface on the right, you can see the photons change directions! they should try using odd non-everyday objects like cylindrical cones of different degrees.
the slow mo guys need this
Maybe you guys should use this camera to study sonoluminescence.
Dammm..I played another video of light moving x0.25 speed and got a better experience than this...lol😂😂😂
so to see the actual spectrum are you reducing the exposure time? @5:09
now all we need is a monitor that is 1 billion Hz and a youtube player that displays more than 30 fps.
Maybe there should be an option to upload or display a video with more FPS, but for 95% of UA-cam videos 30FPS is perfect and in fact better than 60FPS because 60FPS would buffer 2x slower, it would suck.
And technically even on a 30 FPS if you were to watch a 1 billion fps picture you are seeing it in 1 billion fps...
TheKittenish well now you can play some videos at 60FPS
boeingairbusguy Only newer videos. If they choose to render at 60fps
Don't under stand this at all. How can you see a photon that is moving 'across' your line of vision? The photon has to go into the camera lens for the camera to see it.
they scatter in the air
this is great but where are the sharks with lasers on their heads!!
That camera set-up may just be able to capture the entire length of my attention span.
They still can't see my fart.
Nord Stage could use thermal
Actually, they can. Search "schliren".
Butt they can see you shart !
slow mo guys wouldnt like that...
Lol, the two likes must be from dan and gav
:D
I thought of them too!
I'm the only one wich didn't understand squat and only saw light moving in slow motion???
Ashir nope lol
What is file size of the captured video.?
send one of these to the slomoguys
SmarterEveryDay high speed camera
it really quickly filmed the most boring 13 mins ever in the universe
Slowly
Hahaha so accurate
please do the two slit experiment and film it. is there a way to show the fundamental experiment in quantum mechanics in slo-mo. that would be awesome. although i guess you could never film a single photon.
just observing the experiment could collapse the wave function and get improper results. thats the tricky part about the double slit experiment.
That would be awesome to try and reproduce that expirement.
just clarification, not the act of observing it with your eyes breaks it, its just the way in which we have to manipulate the experiment in order to observe it breaks it.
They cheated
Yawn... How much money wasted.
The ability to actually view a photon wave could be incredibly useful for medical diagnostics, along with things we haven't even thought of yet. How did you came to your "money wasted" position, especially considering the relatively small expenditure in question?
You just dont get the possibilitys that we get with this invention.
Yeah, we could have better spent the money on salaries for professional sports athletes.
This opens up the possibility to use improved light scatter instead of ultra sound for tissue imaging in the medical field. Hardly a waste of money. One day you'll be glad that the new imaging technologies caught a disease early.
Not everybody wants to work on the cure for cancer or some other of the "noble" causes.
No of this matters. The human eye cant see past 24 FPS anyway
Cameron Burticus You aren't WATCHING it at a trillion frames per second. You are WATCHING it at 30 fps. It was CAPTURED at a trillion frames per second - - and slowed WAY DOWN to 30 fps.
By the way, the human eye can see far more than 24 fps. Where did you get this number? There are videos right here on youtube that playback at either 30 fps or 60 fps - and you can tell the difference. 60 fps looks all soap-opera-y. The human eye can differentiate between frame rates up to about 150 fps.
Willoughby Krenzteinburg Dude. All of the movies are in 24 FPS cause the human eye cant see past that.
Cameron Burticus 24 FPS? Dude, we can see 60 fps.
Well, if you can't then you need an eye test or some shit.
Jude's guide to games No dude I promise my xbox does 30 and its is smooth because I cant see 30
Cameron Burticus
Yeah, somethings wrong with your eyes. 30 is laggy as hell for me.
Hi,
And thanks for your upload.
Can you tell me if you are viewing single ‘flecks’ of light, what is all around that particular light? Or is it the machine focusing one that array and if the focus is moved the tiniest fraction it would show the light rays either above or below the ones seen in the first picture?
Can you add some more specifications on the Laser source in terms of Frequency. It appears to be around the 500nm. is that correct?
The proof is really at 8:30. You can actually see the object illuminated, but not its reflection, and then the reflection illuminated, but not the object, thus demonstrating light captured in "mid flight". That's awesome!
Do the photons bounce back after hitting the object and wall?
+Christian Millan The objects/wall "reflect" most of the photons. Some of the are absorbed; so that why things heat up in light :)
If one Frame in HD need circa an half Megabyte to save the image, you need an half million Terabyte and more to save a short video.
Sascha Funk unless done in groups but then down goes the resolution.
Your assumption is completely off.
The people who comment things like "it would take two years with that framerate". Well, that's on a basis that the actual "tape" is one second long. Which it is not. It is the length of fotons traveling through a short distance. Which again is waaaaaaaaay shorter than 1 second :-)
Silly question. With the coke bottle, the dam goes very slow. Look at the desk and you see the illumination on the desk keep pace with the bean. How is that possible (I suspect it is to do with the way that camera works) still that roles me. I think it is the fact the for the camera to see the beam it needs to have travelled to it. Then why is the desk lit with scattered light at that distance when the camera appears to be further away. Again this troubles me.
Nice video and still adds value.
Light is a wave. As this wave beam travels it lights everything that is on it's way horizontaly but at the same time it is weaker the further it is from the center of a beam.
woah
how meany gigs? did it need to capture 1B/TR
for the camera?
kiriakos portantaris 1 second = 1 Terabyte
Yeah, double slit experiment with chalk powder please! Also one with materials in which light travels at very different speeds in.
Amazing!
But where did the guy get this music from? And what is the name of the music playing during the 1 trillion FPS demonstration?
I am wrong if i say that the wave of light we can see here, was, for real, approximately in x2? where x2 was equal to " x1+d " and where d=distance that separate the wave of light from the camera objective and x1=the position of the light wave that we see?
Osvaldo Paniccia
This is exactly what I was thinking. If the camera were filming from a different location the propagation of the light pulse it captured would be different. Because as you say, the photons have to travel to the camera so that distance matters
when will you be able to detect changes in the speed of light?
So how are you getting the electrons in the camera to capture light at that speed? You must have a tremendous power source to push them...
Light pulse? So is that capturing the speed of light? When the light turns off the last light particles are seen? As well as the first light particles? And does this mean light is unobservably like water particles or dark matter “particles” ?? making substance?
After all, it's a 'virtual' camera so anything they have done with it has produced 'virtual' results.
What would be the size of the raw video file of something that was recorded at 1 trillion frames per second? Would it be large?
I can't like it enough! So amazing!!
sooo what will you see if you film the dubblesplit experiment?
and it also seems the speed of the particle has less refracting influence than i suspected... the refraction happens but keeps moving along the same path as the origin most ahead particle after it widdens it keeps moving along with it..
no, because for the heelberg uncertaintty principle, is applied to a single particle, not a huge blas as seen here, you see a blast of ultra high slowed motion of light, so it wont change the direction, or the position of the photon, as is a blast of phtons...
why does the pulse of light fade out? I know it's a pulse. Which has a beginning and end to it. But what happens to the particle of light to make it fade out?? Where does it go? Why doesn't light partical stay lit?
Can someone give me a musci name
When it goes past the label is it turning into a wave or are we seeing the scattering and refraction of the big ball of photos onto the label, like the corona of a light bulb. Or is it literally traveling as a big "mass" when we're looking and then a wave when we cant.
I dont know why they said "light particles" here cant be seen a single photon... but can be seen the time light takes to reflex from one source to another one... really interesting, but would be interesting to see for example a balloon filled with water and suspended being shot by a laser (while a light iluminates from one side the scene) with a black background...
Would love to see how light moves from the light source to the balloon, then it explodes by the laser and then the suspended water falls while generate bubbles which would make a great effect with the light.
+BioClone well that would take like 3 years to watch, at 1 trillion fps...
andreiwindstorm only interested on the moment the laser would explode the balloon, not the whole set xD
What's the music during the demo?
HELP! where can I buy this recorder. I want to play record my fortnite game play .
Howdy, where did you source the music?
how is it possible to capture light in a camera sensor while it is still traveling inside the bottle?
Hey, it's back! Why did you make this a private video for a year?
plz give me some more details about it! let me know about it! i mean like camera name, working, side effects,.......ETC.
Guys super excellent work! Greetings to people who understand!
На какой промежуток времени включают и выключают свет?
In 30 years this camera will be in $50 phones, but no one's going to waste a gallon of gas on obsolete smartphone technology.
Hopefully we'll find another fuel source
Bad news, 22 years remaining and we have a lot of inflation with the gas
Why would anyone dislike this? Like, it's science, not an opinion.
Now, do you have it in 4k quality /
price?
But how do you see light moving when the thing that you use to see is the light itself? That's like saying you can hear a sound wave moving in the distance.
How long did it take to render this 1bil frames
Not sure if you noticed this, but after the expanding "bubble" of light hits the tomato thing, the tomato thing stays glowing well after the "light bubble" continues toward the wall. Photons bouncing around inside opaque matter? Food for thought. Wait, wtf was that rainbow afterwards
But can it see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Someone explain the reflection @7:54 in the middle of the bottle.
If you film at lightspeed, than light doesn't have time to go there and make the relection.
who did the music? Love it!
👌
This is really cool. Notice on the Coke bottle one how the parts of the image farther away from the camera show the band of light farther back along the bottle, because it takes longer to get to the lens from there.
_However_, we're not looking at individual photons. We're looking at an individual laser light pulse composed of a whole bunch of them (the thing about photons that you only observe them in one place so you need a whole bunch of them to make an image)
Still, fascinating.
how much space would this take up?
on a hard drive ? Resolution is quite low. So 1 frame will cost them about 50-75 kB. That means that 1 sec video will worth about 50 TB (for 1 000 000 000)
You could have demonstrated refraction. It would have been so cool!
Please film Pistol Shrimp
4000 degree K
Great candidate for ultra-high speed photography & temperature increase process.
Hey man, why dont you do one with with the effect of Mirrors on the light? So we can see how much light is lost with each bounce?
Sir, which light show us the bottle??🤔🤔🤔
If we use good old common sebse here, how does the light reach the lense just as it hit the object?? Can't trick me :/