11 ms·
Camera freezes time at 10 trillion frames per second
- ttty 8y agoWhere is the video? That's what I'm looking for
- thanatos_dem 8y agoHere’s a video from 2011, but it’s only at 1 trillion FPS using the same laser pulse approach - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSqFWcb4rE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSqFWcb4rE Also, the music is pretty cringey, so I’d just leave it muted...
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoWatching this confuses me as to the timing of it all... if the conceit is that we're watching the bundle of photons move through the bottle that's because the photons from the source are hitting the camera, right? So is it the light moving through the bottle + the travel time to the sensor? Should refraction and reflection across the surface cause a lot of weird visual interference (as the bottle's size is no longer insignificant the time scale for lights velocity)? Is that what we're seeing there?
- lawlessone 8y agoIt kinda is, but as far as i know they're actually taking the multiple photos separately of different pulses and editing them into one video.
- CPLX 8y agoIs there another method of making a video?
- IanCal 8y agoYes, normally to video a car going past I'd take a series of photos as it goes past once. The approach here would be to take a photo of a car, then drive the car past again from the start and take another photo slightly later, then again, and again driving it past hundreds of times. They split this up even more, but I think the basic analogy holds to show the key difference.
- irisli 8y agoThe team behind the video of the coke bottle has a TED talk that explains it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA Edit: oops I misread your comment
- stestagg 8y agotaking one video of one pulse, and not editing it
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zenojevski 8y agoWhen the light reaches the camera, it has already moved roughly the same amount forward through the bottle. So my guess is yes, each frame is visibly showing "the past". My guess is also that, if the laser is really focused, and if the bottle wasn't in the way, refracting some light back to the camera, we wouldn't even be able to see anything.
- jcims 8y agoI had this similar realization when I watched that video from 2011 the first time around (hard to believe it was 7 years ago). It also gave me this odd sense of blindness, in that I cannot actually see what's in front of me, only what literally interacts with my retina, almost like it's made of tastebuds for light. Still weirds me out when i think about it.
- plasticchris 8y agoYour eyes are terahertz radio receivers!
- debt 8y agoOnly 1 trillion FPS? Yawn
- TaylorAlexander 8y agoI believe the approach in your video relies on a single laser pulse per frame, with many laser pulses combined to create the series of images for the video. The new approach, in contrast, emphasizes that the capture is done using a single laser pulse captured sequentially in real time.
- magicalhippo 8y agoThere's some cool videos at the end of this article. Not the article posted, but similar concept if I understood correctly. Observation of laser pulse propagation in optical fibers with a SPAD camera https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43302 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43302 http://i.giphy.com/3og0IQ5k6PP9KspN9m.gif http://i.giphy.com/3og0IQ5k6PP9KspN9m.gif (gif version of one of the mov files)
- jjeaff 8y agoI believe this one is related. 1 trillion fps. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk
- _sigma 8y agoThe paper is OA, and the supplemental has the videos. S5 and S6 are the best. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-018-0044-7#Sec14 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-018-0044-7#Sec14
- InclinedPlane 8y agoThey're uploading the raw files, it's only 37 exabytes, but it'll be a while.
- plasticchris 8y agoIt makes you wonder what the memory bandwidth is like in their capture rig
- degenerate 8y agoIt doesn't really capture 10 trillion frames per second. The laser pulses at a regular interval, and the combination of the regular pulsing + multiple pictures taken at different points along those pulses makes for 10 trillion distinct frames captured within the timeframe of 1 second. There is no actual video captured. I get that being a tech journalist is difficult, you have to juggle between the tech and the layman. But after writing a headline, read it back to yourself and ask: will this put the wrong idea in people's minds? If the answer is yes, rewrite it... even if it sounds less cool.
- endorphone 8y agoI don't quite understand how your original point refutes the headline. They are saying that it captures frames at a rate that, measured in seconds, would be ten trillion frames per second. The headline seems entirely accurate.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- quadcore 8y agoHow long can they maintain that frame rate for?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- edh649 8y agoReminded me of this TED talk on femto-photography: https://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_...
- gjm11 8y agoThis phys.org "article" is simply a copy of the INRS press release you can find here: http://www.inrs.ca/english/actualites/worlds-fastest-camera-freezes-time-10-trillion-frames-second http://www.inrs.ca/english/actualites/worlds-fastest-camera-... Actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-018-0044-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-018-0044-7 Website for the INRS lab's project on this: http://coilab.caltech.edu/research_6.html http://coilab.caltech.edu/research_6.html (includes PDF of the above paper and others) As almost always, the phys.org "article" adds nothing of value to the press release it reproduces.
- givinguflac 8y agoThanks for the links! I see your point, but lots of people wouldn’t know about this if it was just a press release. I know I don’t have enough time to check for them.
- jiveturkey 8y agoYes, of course. The person posting the link, however, should do even the tiniest bit of legwork.
- sctb 8y agoThanks! We've updated the link from https://m.phys.org/news/2018-10-world-fastest-camera-trillion.html https://m.phys.org/news/2018-10-world-fastest-camera-trillio....
- femtocycle 8y agoHow close is this to planck time?
- phinnaeus 8y agoNot close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time) Femto = 10^-15, Plank = 10^-44
- ifdefdebug 8y agoin orders of magnitude: about 10^13 * 10^-44 = 10^-31 ... not very close. If you amplify planck time to 1 s, a frame of this cam would take about 10^14 times the age of the universe (10^17 s) in comparison.
- dfee 8y agoHijacking this as it’s getting intelligent responses: what’s the greatest resolution we could measure today, and what’s physically possible?
- InclinedPlane 8y agoWell, let's do some quick and dirty math. Let's say you have a very bright light source, and that light source results in shining a full 100 Watts of light into the sensor of your camera (I'm using this not as a typical example but because it will make it easy to scale the answer). Photons of visible light have an energy of at minimum 1.5 electron-Volts (800nm red light), which means that 100 Watts of light represents 4.2e20 photons per second. And that means that with only 100 Watts of light reaching your sensor you cannot attain an fps higher than 4.2e20, because at that speed you'd only get on average around one photon per frame. More realistically you need tens of thousands to millions of photons per frame to have some meaningful level of dynamic range and spatial resolution, which limits the fps to around a quadrillion fps per 100 Watts of light falling on the sensor. Though once you get into that range you also have problems of signalling, we don't really have electronics that work at those speeds.
- spearthrowerowl 8y ago
- izzydata 8y agoHow many frames per second would you need to film at for a photon of light to be in an identical position on 2 frames?
- jwalton 8y agoLight travels roughly 300 billion m/s, so at 10 trillion fps, light moves about 3cm.
- rapnie 8y agoJoking? Wikipedia: 299,792,458 metres per second
- caseymarquis 8y agoWouldn't it be fantastic if it traveled that fast though! The benefit to computing would be enormous.
- rapnie 8y agoWonder how the universe would look like, then, through our telescopes.
- refurb 8y agoSpeed of light ~300 million km/s. 10 trillion frames per second. Light would have travelled 3cm on each frame.
- rapnie 8y agoIf you change the km to m: 299,792,458 metres per second
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 8y ago
- ourmandave 8y ago“It’s an achievement in itself,” says Jinyang Liang, the leading author of this work, who was an engineer in COIL when the research was conducted, “but we already see possibilities for increasing the speed to up to one quadrillion (1015) frames per second!” Just getting started... o_O
- jastanton 8y agoHonest question, what can be seen at one quadrillion fps that 10 trillion cannot already see? This question is out of pure ignorance and wonder, like "Why would you ever want to move faster than a horse". But this is at a scale I just cannot think in anymore.
- TylerE 8y agoImagine expirmental physics. Being able to watch things like explosions in super minute detail. Watching light propogate.
- neom 8y ago"Watching light propogate" Gave me shivers.
- mediawatcher234 8y agoUmm good luck getting enough photons to see anything. Shot noise
- p1esk 8y agoIt would be cool to record single photon splittings along some path, as they happen in real time [0]. [0] https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/news.2010.381.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/news.2010.381.h...
- cronix 8y agoI imagine this would give discoveries in the LHC a boost, or at least some amazing footage of atoms colliding and exploding :) That would be amazing!
- gus_massa 8y agoNo, for a few reasons: First they are producing too many collisions (probably many quadrillion of collisions, I can't find the exact number). Most of the are boring, so they have a lot of filters to select and save only the slightly interesting collisions, because otherwise it would be impossible to save the data. IIRC they only got a few thousand of Higgs bosons, he signal to noise ratio is almost 0. Second to film something using light, the object must be bigger than the wavelength of the light. There are some tricks to reduce this a little, but you can't film elementary particles directly. The old method was to let the particles create small bubbles or drops of water inside a recipient, and then photograph the chain of dots with visible light. In the new equipment the process is more complicated, but the interesting part of the collision is too fast and too small. They only measure the particles that are flying away after the interesting part happened, they only measure the leftovers and try to reconstruct the actual collision. Third, the interesting collisions have strong quantum effects, and the quantum effects "disappear" when you are using light that is strong enough to get an accurate position of the particles. You can imagine that if the light is strong enough, then the light itself will bounce against the particles and modify the direction and the collision. It sounds somewhat like magic, but it's possible to write this correctly and precisely using a lot of math and is one of the bases of quantum mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
- inventtheday 8y ago"This new camera literally makes it possible to freeze time" It literally freezes time? Come on..