4 ms·
It seems like it would be much cooler with the strobe, as it's easy to change it to any frequency along with the speaker frequency (compared to dynamically chan
by throw_away 14y ago
It seems like it would be much cooler with the strobe, as it's easy to change it to any frequency along with the speaker frequency (compared to dynamically changing the frame rate on a camera [though, that sounds awesome]). I also wonder what the stream looks like in real life, but am amused that I cannot trust any video to show me.
- MBlume 14y agoIf you did as you said, you'd also see the length of the waves dynamically lengthening/contracting. If you saw it in person, it'd just look blurred out.
- noonespecial 14y agoA video taken at 48 frames/sec or more would begin to show you the "truth". The faster the frame rate, the more true to life it would become. This is a perfect example of a signal approaching the Nyquist frequency of the system sampling it.
- gus_massa 14y agoYes, but it's a little more complicated. With a camera of exactly 48fps and a wave of exactly 24hz you would see two intertwined jets. (It would be nice to see it. An easier implementation it is to use a 24fps camera and a 12hz wave.) With 48fps you can reconstruct any signal whose frequencies are less than 24hz (for example sin(2pit/23)+1/2 sin(2pit/17)). But the reconstruction algorithm must be implemented in a computer. The eye/brain simply "join" the nearest images of consecutive frames, so video with a 23hz signal sampled at 48fps would looks like two intertwined jets spinning slowly upwards. A computer algorithm (or a looot of hand calculations) can reconstruct the real only one jet falling down.
- mistercow 14y agoTo really get an idea of what it would look like in real life, you'd be best off with a slower shutter speed.