If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
Matt Clara wrote: Mike Henley wrote: I'm back, did you miss me? More importantly, who's jamel debbouze? http://tinyurl.com/e2zcy If you know much about him do tell me. IMDB and wikipedia are lacking in adequate information and searches on google and google groups didn't explain to me more about who this guy is. Given the recent race riots in France and the French cinema's taste for screen gods and goddesses with stunning Gallic beauty I find it surprising that a young short dark moroccan amputee is said to be the highest paid actor in France for the year 2002, who'd foot the bill for someone's else million dollar party and drive a supercar, and especially so when considering that he acted in two films in that year, in one of them he was "uncredited" (can't be a big role!), and his only work in 2001 and most widely known was that in Amelie in which he was one of many, many minor characters and most of his acting consisted of being slapped on the head. "P Diddy, the artist formerly known as Puff Daddy, has been celebrating his 33rd birthday in style in the Moroccan city of Marrakech... Debouze had organised the weekend and was footing much of the bill, reported to be about $1m." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2401353.stm Your triumphant return unfortunately coincides with the troll's. *sigh* |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
"Rich" wrote in message news 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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
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 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
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. -- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
"Peter Irwin" wrote in message ... 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. Perhaps you are right....I've always used neutral density filters to shoot eclipses........I did see an observatory that specialized in the sun near Stanford University....They projected it with optics from the roof of the building onto a table about 30 inches high. The image was about two feet in diameter, and was marvelously clear and sharp....You could see solar flares in real time.....(8 minute delayed, of course.) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
In article .com, 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". Enjoy http://www.rapidnewswire.com/atom.htm Fascinating thread you started, Mike. Anyone seriously interested in the general subject of high-speed photography may care to get hold of a copy of "High Speed Photography and Photonics", Ed Sidney F Ray, Focal Press 1997, ISBN 0 2405 1479 3 (The may be a later edition for all I know. However, it would only be fair to point out that it actually has little about Edgerton, and nothing about the Rapatronic system, at least under that name. Vast amounts of useful detail on the general subject though. David -- David Littlewood |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"
In article , William
Graham writes I did see an observatory that specialized in the sun near Stanford University....They projected it with optics from the roof of the building onto a table about 30 inches high. The image was about two feet in diameter, and was marvelously clear and sharp....You could see solar flares in real time.....(8 minute delayed, of course.) There is also the 150m solar telescope at Mt Wilson , which opens daily to the public, and produces images about that size - quite impressive if you happen to visit during high activity days. It has a webcam mounted on the top giving updates at 4minute intervals of the Mt Wilson site. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Eobs/towercam.htm -- 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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second" | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 73 | February 22nd 06 08:50 AM |
Combining exposures | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 8 | November 16th 04 08:30 PM |
Nikon D100 long exposures - Help! | Anonymous | Digital Photography | 16 | August 17th 04 12:31 PM |