Video of light in motion

[Stookie_]

I watched this earlier today and was fascinated. I've never seen video of light traveling before. I think he said they capture it at over a billion frames per second. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Nice find. Its about time something new appeared. A while ago the laser was invented with hardly any use for it. Today its everywhere.
Thie camera with todays nano tech already has many uses. Lets wait and see. At least with this one we'll know whats coming around the corner.lol

[Stillwater]

One of the commenters on the article suggested they photograph the double slit experiment.

Something tells me that is one of the first things the makers of this thought of.

Would be an interesting investigation.

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Other anomolies,
The delay light has when entering a differing refractive index.
What goes on in the prism to display the spectrum.

[Fresco]

Couldnt they theoretically bounce lights off our nearest Star (Proxima Centauri) which is 4.243 light years away, and then in theory we could map that Star and all its planets in about 8.5 years from now??

Or is that crazy Fresco talk??

[catmeow]

That is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. Wouldn't have thought it possible. Nice find.

[Xanth]

That was definitely an interesting video.
Thank you Stookie for posting that!

One of the commenters on the article suggested they photograph the double slit experiment.

Something tells me that is one of the first things the makers of this thought of.

Would be an interesting investigation.

Something tells me they would end up getting the same results as if they had the measurement device running.

[Xanth]

I did a bit of research into HOW Femto-Photography works.

Basically what you're watching, with the bottle of water for example, isn't one continuous "video".  That would be entirely impossible.
What you ARE watching is an experiment done billions/trillions of time and a "image" snapped at a slightly further point along the line each time... then those images put together to form the video clip.

The point of light you're watching is simply a single snapshot among many snapshots... the speaker is kind of misleading, except he uses the term "virtual", which, I guess, makes it all better.  LoL

It's still VERY interesting, but this kind of photography can't be used on anything that's moving.  It needs to be a completely stationary object, 100% immobile and it needs to be a repeatable event where very little changes in order for this to happen.  Hence the "non-moving" bottle and the "non-moving" tomato which the presenter shows.

Certainly does provide a spectacular presentation. 

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Related to this is the use of a strobe light on a tap just turned on. You can capture a video of drops of water taking almost forever to fall. Quite a bit of precision required to do this accurately equipment wise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtxlQTmx1LE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Stookie_]

The point of light you're watching is simply a single snapshot among many snapshots...

That's what all video is. (The moving pictures on your TV aren't real  ).

the speaker is kind of misleading, except he uses the term "virtual", which, I guess, makes it all better.  LoL

He's not misleading - that's exactly what he explained in the video. Nor does it make it less real - how the light is actually reflected and bounced is seen. Doesn't make it any less fascinating to me.

[Stillwater]

Yeah, I did seem to miss the point that it wasn't a single event, but many frames taken from a series of separate similar events at various stages; that has alot of implications for what you could use it to investigate, since you couldn't use it to study an event that may happen to occur quite differently everytime it iterates, even if the differences averaged out- especially the double-slit example I mentioned, since it is relavent how each indvidual iteration turns out, from begining to end, and this would not be a means to study that.

[Fresco]

That's what all video is. (The moving pictures on your TV aren't real  )

Yup, I was just gonna say the same thing.  A movie is nothing more then "moving pictures".
In fact, thats what they used to call movies back in the 20's when they first came out, they were called "moving pictures" 

[Xanth]

I'll explain my confusion.  I'm not saying anything which diminishes the results.  The results look absolutely stunning and seems to be the basis for many new technologies which will stem from it.

However, while the end result is very much the same as a tv show or movie, that's because of the way all the separate frames are edited together.  It's HOW and WHEN those separate frames are taken which is the big difference.

The way you shoot a tv show/movie is that you do it mostly in as few "takes" as possible.  You don't have the actors do each scene billions of times and take a picture at a slightly different time during each "take".  But, that's exactly what's occuring with FemtoPhotography.

I was wondering if they had actually taken the shot in one single "take", sort to speak.  Because THAT would be amazing, as it would break a lot of laws of physics... namely, you'd be taking the images faster than the speed of light.  This is what was misleading... or at least, I don't believe the host made very clear.  Myself and many others (from the looks of the youtube comments) were also confused by what was actually being shown here.

It doesn't, in any way diminish the results.  The results are spectacular, to say the least.  But, it doesn't *technically* show "light in motion".

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Its the nearest objective display on this subjective premise. It works to demonstrate flow but cant work to show effects that happen in the nano second interval let alone femto.
Thats a completely different technology and not a capability at present.
The same principle is used in electronics with precision rectifiers and has been used since the 80's by myself. It originated earlier but now adapted to photography.
It a good call.

[Fresco]

I'll explain my confusion.  I'm not saying anything which diminishes the results.  The results look absolutely stunning and seems to be the basis for many new technologies which will stem from it.

However, while the end result is very much the same as a tv show or movie, that's because of the way all the separate frames are edited together.  It's HOW and WHEN those separate frames are taken which is the big difference.

The way you shoot a tv show/movie is that you do it mostly in as few "takes" as possible.  You don't have the actors do each scene billions of times and take a picture at a slightly different time during each "take".  But, that's exactly what's occuring with FemtoPhotography.

I was wondering if they had actually taken the shot in one single "take", sort to speak.  Because THAT would be amazing, as it would break a lot of laws of physics... namely, you'd be taking the images faster than the speed of light.  This is what was misleading... or at least, I don't believe the host made very clear.  Myself and many others (from the looks of the youtube comments) were also confused by what was actually being shown here.

It doesn't, in any way diminish the results.  The results are spectacular, to say the least.  But, it doesn't *technically* show "light in motion".

But the point of the whole thing was they can now peek around corners and reconstruct whatever object is on the other side out of view

[Fresco]

Hi,
Its the nearest objective display on this subjective premise. It works to demonstrate flow but cant work to show effects that happen in the nano second interval let alone femto.
Thats a completely different technology and not a capability at present.
The same principle is used in electronics with precision rectifiers and has been used since the 80's by myself. It originated earlier but now adapted to photography.
It a good call.

So you disagree or you agree that this is groundbreaking??

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Of course its groundbreaking, look at my first post re the laser.

[Xanth]

But the point of the whole thing was they can now peek around corners and reconstruct whatever object is on the other side out of view

Only if the object is stationary.

If the object is moving... it'll be nothing but a huge blob.

The technology is amazing, granted... and I'm sure a lot of real world applications will come of it, but right now it seems kinda limited.

[Fresco]

Only if the object is stationary.

If the object is moving... it'll be nothing but a huge blob.

The technology is amazing, granted... and I'm sure a lot of real world applications will come of it, but right now it seems kinda limited.

I hear ya.

I'm sure some other new technology will come around thats able to snap pics of moving objects though

[Fresco]

Hi,
Of course its groundbreaking, look at my first post re the laser.

Okay, just checking 

[catmeow]

Thanks Ryan for explaining that it's actually a stroboscope, rather than a true motion picture camera. That detail evaded me first time through. Watching a second time, he does kinda explain it, but is fuzzy on the details. It's still an extraordinary camera. Limited applications right now, but I can remember when computers read programs from a reel of punched paper tape. That same program would now be stored in a part of a microchip, almost invisible to the eye.

[catmeow]

Hi,
Its the nearest objective display on this subjective premise. It works to demonstrate flow but cant work to show effects that happen in the nano second interval let alone femto.
Thats a completely different technology and not a capability at present.
The same principle is used in electronics with precision rectifiers and has been used since the 80's by myself. It originated earlier but now adapted to photography.
It a good call.

What application are you thinking of which uses rectifiers? I can't think of any. I'm curious.

One device, I can think of, which uses a principle similar to the femtocamera is the oscilloscope.

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Mixed wires perhaps?
The reference was made of it being able to sample part of a signal and seperate it from the total signal at a very precise point. One use of many.
Its part of the total electronics, not a device as such.
Hope this clears things.

[catmeow]

Thanks Szaxx. I see what you are saying.