Henry Caville, but not that "version". I just want classic Superman on screen. Not some weird moody adaptation of the character. I want to see someone who is GOOD, and LEADS humanity while learning from us. I want to see a mild-mannered reporter who is awkward and devoted to justice and truth.
And a proper Lex Luthor would absolutely be the best villain for this day and age. He really is a perfect embodiment of so many problems with rich megalomaniacs.
Out of all the superman actors, at least live action, I think Cavil is the best suited for introspective sit down and talk to you person to person supes. We really need to get a movie that actually shows that side of superman
they dont film at a trillion frames per second, they can take a picture that lasts a trillionth of a second. By sending multiple identical flashes of light at their subject and taking many of these high speed photos they make a film by arranging them relative to the flash start.
That's a bit deceiving.
I mean, yeah, they're catching light traveling mid journey, and that's impressive, but we are seeing more of a representation of light traveling than an actual video of it traveling then.
Still impressive as fuck.
Theoretically they could make an actual video of light traveling in one shot if they used multiple of these cameras at the same time, similar to how the "bullet time" effect is achieved in film. The only caveats being it would have to be a moving shot and it would be very, very expensive.
It'd be an interesting problem to solve. We have the technology to execute it, except we don't have the right algorithm to make it click. Modern computers can have clock speeds of over 4Ghz, which is essentially 4 billion instructions per second. We can squeeze out more instructions with efficient multi-threaded programs. But the biggest problem is the core algorithm to make it all click. That'll be a revolutionary answer in the field.
Yeah even just achieving that level of precision in the digital triggering circuity is difficult. Each gate might trigger at an every so slightly different part of the edge of a level change. Enough that it could throw off the overall pacing.
Eh I think synchronization would be doable at least with ~1ps resolution-- you just have to make a trigger or fiducial (aka a signal that shows up on the camera at a very precise time) that can be used as a reference. They must already be doing this anyways because they have to stitch together a bunch of different images onto the same time basis so they must have a way of absolutely calibrating that.
Fiducials in this sort of context usually are based off of taking some reference laser pulse (in this case you could just use a bit of the illumination pulse) and then routing it through optical cable before it goes to whatever device you're interested in and is converted into a signal it can measure. So, keeping track of the timing is the same as keeping track of the length of your fiber optic cables and their index of refraction-- 1ps corresponds to a ~0.3 mm, which is small but sounds possible to manufacture to that tolerance level especially for shorter cable runs. I know on a lot of laser fusion facilities they are able to get timing jitter between various components down to ~10ps and these facilities are gigantic and have super long cable runs and complicated signal paths, so 1ps for a much more compact setup would be doable I think.
This research is over a decade old. When they first published it, our group literally went, "No way they are doing a trillion fps." Reading their paper tells you that they don't. That bottle video also is an integration of a really large number of pulses. Even the single frame is not a full frame, if I remember correctly. It uses a line aperture instead of circular aperture.
While this research group usually does very interesting research, they are also prone to overselling their outputs.
Not to mention that they don’t see photons move, that’s the stuff hitting the sensor, the reflections and the like, but a very short pulse of light.
Still cool though.
One sec while I take a toke...
"Do we even see anything move, man? Like, it's all just our minds interpretation of photons reflecting or the absence of photons we expect to see blocked by the thing"
Any camera can only really pick up light reflecting or refracting, it's not going to be able to see the light travel directly. This is more or less true of any detector of any phenomenon, it needs to interact with the thing it is detecting.
Any attempt to directly see light travel would fail, because it would be definition have to be at an angle away from the detector, in which case it wouldn't reach the detector without being redirected towards it.
I also remember reading something at some point about a theoretical frame rate limit (only ~100 faster than this), which still requires light to be "slowed down" in order to observe it reasonably. More sophisticated scientific setups get the system down near absolute zero to achieve this, and I think to increase resolution.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/3/483
You are really showing some naiveness lol.
If you had any idea how many scientific measurements are done in this manner you wouldn't be calling this deceiving.
It really is deceiving, the shot of bullet hitting the apple could not be captured with this device, since it is not repeatable. Yet they still use it to illustrate the cameras speed.
I think you're getting caught up in the fact that by their very definition, analogies are not facsimiles.
They use it to illustrate the quantity of frames captured and then played back at a "normal" rate to give people some ideas of the difference in speed and how thinly "sliced" it really is.
You don't need to know that you couldn't capture that exact event because they are just explaining the overall magnitude differences.
That is true, but i only knew that because i understood how the camera worked beforehand. Nothing in the video indicates that taking such a video is impossible, there is no reason to assume it would be. People watching this video will think that there is a camera that can film a single beam of light, which there isn't.
They are not lying, but there not giving people a chance to really understand what is happening, which is a form of dishonesty to me.
So basically the same as a seemingly slow spinning wheel or propeller because the camera frame rate almost matches the rotation of the object. But on a smaller scale.
in a video the pictures are usually taken in sequence, and of one event, while here they photograph multiple identical events (light pulses) thousands of times and then arrange the pictures to form a video of one event. The final video shows only the light part, for the image of the tomato they use a regular camera and put it as background.
it's on their website and intheir paper. [https://web.media.mit.edu/\~raskar/trillionfps/](https://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/)
>Can you capture any event at this frame rate? What are the limitations?
We can NOT capture arbitrary events at picosecond time resolution. If the event is not repeatable, the required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) will make it nearly impossible to capture the event. We exploit the simple fact that the photons statistically will trace the same path in repeated pulsed illuminations. By carefully synchronizing the pulsed illumination with the capture of reflected light, we record the same pixel at the same exact relative time slot millions of times to accumulate sufficient signal. Our time resolution is 1.71 picosecond and hence any activity spanning smaller than 0.5mm in size will be difficult to record.
>How does this compare with capturing videos of bullets in motion?
About 50 years ago, Doc Edgerton created stunning images of fast-moving objects such as bullets. We follow in his footsteps. Beyond the scientific exploration, our videos could inspire artistic and educational visualizations. The key technology back then was the use of a very short duration flash to 'freeze' the motion. Light travels about a million times faster than bullet. To observe photons (light particles) in motion requires a very different approach**. The bullet is recorded in a single shot, i.e., there is no need to fire a sequence of bullets. But to observe photons, we need to send the pulse (bullet of light) millions of times into the scene.**
I've only read what you quoted here and not the rest of the page, but this doesn't back up your claim that they are taking individual photos each pulse. They are taking multiple videos to get a clearer definition. In each video the pulse will behave more or less the same way but the camera sensor is so sensitive it will also pick up a lot of interference from the enviroment, essentially static. Running it multiple times lets them elimate the static by comparing each frame of each video and only keeping what is the same, I.e. the pulse, throughout all of them
It absolutely does back up their claim. If the capture time is longer then we wouldn't be able to see the wave.
Imagine you want to capture a bursting water balloon. But your camera's exposure time is not 1/30 of a second, but 1 hour. You can record for as long as you like but the best you'll get is a mess that shows that the water did indeed burst all over the place, and the density was higher at the balloon's location. But it won't show the path the water wave took.
It doesn't mean they don't need to take multiple images though. As you said, they need to eliminate all the noise, and with such low exposure time, there will be plenty
I think this is the real answer. Eliminating noise is the key to success. I imagine if they use this camera for other stuff it would just be a white mess. Notice how it's completely dark in their test room. Even that doesn't eliminate all noise, like neutrinos and even free electrons could mess it up, i think.
I used to work for one of the guys that did this after he moved on from MIT. They used a special camera that only captures one angle of the scene at a time, then splice them all together in post. And yes, they do multiple runs of the same angle to get a better signal to noise ratio.
There's another method with these kinds of super high frame rate cameras that they **VERY** finely adjust the timing of the camera exposure relative to the laser pulse to capture the whole scene. A light pulse, on the whole, travels the same way each time (as in each photon is random/stochastic, but there's so many of them that it comes out to be the same).
They don't even do full frames. It is vertical lines that is stacked together by repeated exposures of pulses of light emitted at known intervals, and mirrors and delays adjusting where in the scene is captured.
Yes, the method is called "pump-probe", and it is ised in many research fields in physics and electronics (a sampling oscilloscope, cost effective method to look at multiple GHz signals, functions with the same principle). It requires full reproducibility of the effect you want to look at and, when you have that, you can make movies down to the sub-fs scale, depending on the probe you use.
Science: we take a trillion pictures of the same, repeatable event, because statistically the collage of images would represent the initial event over time.
Tik Tom: OMG! ThEy FiLm LiGhT tRaVeL! I beg you to watch my 10 seconds clip, we are starving here.
Isn’t this all a video is?
If someone were able to act out a scene exactly 1000x and you took a frame from each run; is the net result different than filming the first take?
It certainly would be for the actor and camera guy putting in the work. But yeah, as a viewer, it's mostly a technicality. Regardless, absolutely neat AF to see.
It is delayed of course. The idea is that they release a very short burst of light and that light will reflect from objects in the scene and arrive at the image sensor at different times based on their distance. The light cannot be imaged until it reflects and reaches the image sensor.
The extremely misleading part is the apple video. Because you cannot do it with this setup at all.
You would need to replace the apple after each frame.
Because if it was filmed the same way the video of the light was they would have to shoot one bullet for each frame.
The camera doesn't actually capture trillion frames per second. It has a shutter speed of a trillionth of a second.
So for every frame of the video it's a different beam of light. The picture of it is just taken one trillionth of a second later than the one before it. Those pictures are then put together in to a video. Because everything in the scene is stationary the resulting video looks exactly the same as if the video was captured with a video camera that shot one trillion frames per second.
Damn, this is the explanation that finally made it click for me, thank you. What's really crazy to me is that apparently light doesn't actually move that far in a trillionth of a second. Google says a trillionth of a second is a picosecond, and that light only moves 0.3 mm in a picosecond. Which is just mindblowing that we even have shutter speeds that quick. This video went from amazing, to slightly disappointing, and then back to being pretty mind blowing.
If you are into computers: 1Ghz equals 1 nano second or 1000 pico seconds. The speed of electric signals is in the same order of magnitude as the speed of light, but definitely slower.
An electric signal within your CPU travels definitely less than 300mm within one cycle at 1 GHz. Most likely less than 50mm for a CPU at full speed and actual speed of electric signals. The paths within a CPU are never straight.
Long story short: a bit cannot travel from one end of your CPU to the other within one cycle.
And those guys have managed to signal all pixels at the same time and definitely needed to take cable lengths into account.
The dude took multiple shots of a laser shooting bursts of lights. The. He cherry picked the pictures and stitched them together to make a video.
Honestly it's a bit deceptive but still cool tech.
The misleading part is the fact they act as if in one shot, you are seeing the same pulse of light moving through space, instead you see multiple pulses of light at different times.
Granted it is still very amazing to capture a pulse of light frozen in any one of those instances. as opposed to the whole scene being lit with every capture like a normal camera would see.
Stroboscopic imaging isn't "deceptive". You shoot a burst of light, wait a given amount of time, and then record a short frame of the scene. Doing it over and over again with varying times gives the same frames as if you had an actual slo-mo camera. Obviously only works on a stationary scene.
I'd say the only thing deceptive here is calling it a camera that captures trillions of frames per second. Rather, it's a camera with a trillionth of a second shutter speed.
>I'd say the only thing deceptive here is calling it a camera that captures trillions of frames per second. Rather, it's a camera with a trillionth of a second shutter speed.
If you go back and listen to it again, this actually happens in the video lol. Scientist dude says a trillionth of a second, news dude immediately says a trillion frames per second.
I watched it muted. But it's nothing new that media outlets will report technological advances in an inaccurate way.
For all intents and purposes, it does record trillions of frames per second. You just need to repeat that second over and over again.
They're not. They capturing snap shots of light.
Basically the setup just loops the same thing over and over. You just need to adjust the camera to take the shot at different point for each loop.
Others have described well how the camera actually works but even if if worked as a normal high speed camera you could still see this. In essence you just film the light travelling after it happened. Waiting for the light to reach the camera
Yes. Resolution refers to the 'smallest measurable interval' in the given context.
For screens (like you are probably thinking of) that is pixel size. For this it is the frame rate.
Yeah, he kinda misspoke a little there ("trillionth of a frame per second") but it was immediately cleared up with the interviewer's followup confirming he meant a trillion frames per second.
The way he worded it then could even be interpreted to be technically correct but awkward to such a degree it sounds wrong.
yes because they dont film at a trillion frames per second, they can take a picture that lasts a trillionth of a second. By sending multiple identical flashes of light and taking these high speed photos they make a film by arranging them relative to the flash starts.
Yeap, resolution just means the ability to tell two elements apart. There is display resolution (pixels, dpi, dot pitch, etc) but also there is time resolution (Hz, which is cycles/samples per second, like the trillion samples per second mentioned in this post).
So, [this is a video of 12 years ago](https://youtu.be/bh2kNoEOZEQ?si=G_j4CeJkJlfISk91)
What is the progress we’ve made since then?
What did we do with this knowledge?
That was what I was thinking too. The predictions based on this study were wild like seeing around corners or hidden spaces and using light as a source for medical imaging...wonder what happened?
I used to do this research (literally worked for one of the people on this team). Faster methods of capture is something that has advanced with this kind of research and methods that reduce the signal to noise ratio. I'm not really sure where these faster recording methods are ultimately going but one of the technologies used to do it will probably make it's way into cell phones in the not too distant future, SPAD (single photon avalanche diode) arrays are a different type of chip that doesn't suffer from saturating because of too much light (technically not true but the saturation point is much, much higher).
An off shoot of this research is cameras that can see around corners using bounced light. There's a lot of applications for that, from exploring moon caves from orbit, to using it to explore closed rooms indirectly (think hostage situation).
Shadow is the lack of light, like how an empty battery is a lack of charge in aforementioned battery. It’s the default, the zero on the scale. The lack of something. It has no speed, it’s a constant.
Nothing containing mass can travel faster than causality (speed of light.)
Do shadows have mass? Are shadows just information? Should I get another weed gummy?
By that description, light can travel faster than the speed of light because it doesn’t have mass.
But actually, the more correct catch-all phrase you can use is “information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.”
I can very easily create something that goes faster than the speed of light. For example, if you have a laser pointer, you can make the dot on a wall move very fast with a relatively small flick of the wrist. If you hold a very powerful laser and point it as a distant planet, you can make the dot reaching that planet go faster than the speed of light. This is because, from earth, the movement required to “flick” the laser is small, but the dot on the planet needs to move a much larger distance but during the same duration of the “flick.”
So you can make a dot of light move faster than the speed of light, but no information can be transmitted by the movement of this dot.
No one knows. But so many discoveries lead us in unlikely directions.
Clear glass, first invented in the 1300s, led us to fiber optics in the late 1900s.
The discovery of the law of gravity by Newton gave us orbital mechanics. Which needed lightweight computers to go to space, and a use for the solid state transistor, invented in 1947.
Which led to the computer, possibly hand held, that you used to ask the question.
Science is discovery. Engineering is making use of discoveries.
Some if the mysteries about how drugs interact with our bodies are rooted in the speed at which things change, and so being able to dig into the frame by frame of drug interactions should help to improve our understanding and probably efficacy of some drugs.
It's not a video camera either. They take high speed photos of many many identical pulses then they select ones that when stitched together form this nice movie. The picture of the tomato itself is taken with another camera
yes but the photos in a video are actually of the same event and are all originally taken in order. Here, they photograph multiple pulses at slightly different times and from those photos build an image that shows one pulse
i guess that makes sense. even still though to see the light hit the wall which would take about 1/300,000 of a second must take up a ton of space even for recording at 1 milisecond. i had to google this to see if it was another fake internet thing because i know little about videography and how this is possible, mindblowing
> even still though to see the light hit the wall which would take about 1/300,000 of a second
In 1/300,000 of a second light moves about 1000 meters.
> must take up a ton of space even for recording at 1 milisecond.
Light can move about 300,000 meters in a single millisecond. There is no need to record for that long.
Wow! Last I saw they were at 70 trillion fps, and I thought that was mind bending. This technology has something interesting to teach us about the nature of time.
I have no idea what, but something.
They had a light source pulsate really quickly and a camera that could take pictures really quickly so it got only one photo of each pulse but they got them at different times along the path so it recreated the image of a single pulse traveling it
They didn’t “filming” is misleading. They’re taking individual photos of a pulsating light and stitching it together so basically the compilation you’re seeing is over a longer span of time than it takes for flash of light to be “filmed”
Man it's really annoying how the interviewer keeps acting like this is the first time he's heard of light. The voice over though does exactly what it needs, clarify further what they are doing, the interviewer just keep repeating stuff with a "dumb OMG" voice.
There is a guy in this presenting a fucking impressive technology. But he still says "600 millions miles per hour".
I can bet you, he isn't a scientist
Well, light travels at the speed of light, and besides, it is a particle and a wave at the same time - so the video does not show how light works.
It is physically impossible to build such a fast camera - in the tomato scene, the camera should reach at least 299792458000 FPS (xD) to record 1 frame per 1 mm.
This is about a stroboscopic effect and a flashing light right next to the camera for hours, just to record a video lasting a few seconds - someone already explained this earlier.
I don't mean to be a hater, yet 1 trillion fps is not a resolution. That has no dimensions. The resolution is the size of the image or frame captured. Usually a number followed by Megapixels or just M, and in video @60fps (or in this case @10¹²fps).
Imagine 1 light minute.
Imagine 1 light month.
Imagine 1 light year.
Imagine 1000 light years.
Imagine 1 million years.
Imagine 100 million years and it's not even close the vastness of the universe.
This is just insane. We're not even a "dot" in the known universe in the scale of things.
This video cut is purposely misleading.
They did not catch the movement of one pulse of light at a trillion frames per second.
They use Femto-Photography to piece together thousands of separate videos. Each picture (frame) of those videos had an exposure length of one trillionth of a second.
As [RevolutionaryDot7](https://www.reddit.com/user/RevolutionaryDot7/) mentioned in his comment this video is from 12 years ago, and the complete version explains what is going on:
Femto-Photography
[https://web.media.mit.edu/\~raskar/trillionfps/](https://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography)
I used to imagine being able to see this as a kid....
I used to turn the lights on in the bathroom and imagine watching the light slowly fill up the room and bounce around.
It's incredible we can actually see this.
One option is to have a precisely controlled light source that emits multiple short pulses, and set the camera to trigger with a slightly different delay for each pulse.
Zack Snyder getting really excited. The Directors Cut of his next movie is going to be decades long.
I hope to see a lot more of Superman giving The Flash the side-eye.
I hope to see a lot more of Superman period. The Henry Cavill version.
Henry Caville, but not that "version". I just want classic Superman on screen. Not some weird moody adaptation of the character. I want to see someone who is GOOD, and LEADS humanity while learning from us. I want to see a mild-mannered reporter who is awkward and devoted to justice and truth. And a proper Lex Luthor would absolutely be the best villain for this day and age. He really is a perfect embodiment of so many problems with rich megalomaniacs.
I would love a good all star superman adaptation starring Cavil.
That would be sick.
Out of all the superman actors, at least live action, I think Cavil is the best suited for introspective sit down and talk to you person to person supes. We really need to get a movie that actually shows that side of superman
Now that he's out as Superman, I hope they can resurrect The Witcher.
God if sups can react that fast imagine how board he is just walking around as clark...
That's fine, by the time he finishes editing it, I'll be dead
So the bullet's footage is gonna take a year to watch ? I can see Ezra Miller getting shot for a year.
He’ll film for 1000 years and then the studio releases a crappy 10 year movie so he has to turn it into a 20 year special directors cut
Rebel Moon part three: Farmer's market
VLC will have 10^10 x speed options by then though
Virtual Light(speed) Codec
The absolutely last thing anyone needs to see is Boyhood, directed by Zack Snyder.
90 hours of Black and White Justice League incoming
I for one support the trash talking of Snyder
they dont film at a trillion frames per second, they can take a picture that lasts a trillionth of a second. By sending multiple identical flashes of light at their subject and taking many of these high speed photos they make a film by arranging them relative to the flash start.
That's a bit deceiving. I mean, yeah, they're catching light traveling mid journey, and that's impressive, but we are seeing more of a representation of light traveling than an actual video of it traveling then. Still impressive as fuck.
Theoretically they could make an actual video of light traveling in one shot if they used multiple of these cameras at the same time, similar to how the "bullet time" effect is achieved in film. The only caveats being it would have to be a moving shot and it would be very, very expensive.
Not sure if you would be able to really synchronize that setup of multiple "cameras", at least with current technology.
It'd be an interesting problem to solve. We have the technology to execute it, except we don't have the right algorithm to make it click. Modern computers can have clock speeds of over 4Ghz, which is essentially 4 billion instructions per second. We can squeeze out more instructions with efficient multi-threaded programs. But the biggest problem is the core algorithm to make it all click. That'll be a revolutionary answer in the field.
Not a software problem to solve. A laser with some precise sensors would be more in line with the actual solution.
Yeah even just achieving that level of precision in the digital triggering circuity is difficult. Each gate might trigger at an every so slightly different part of the edge of a level change. Enough that it could throw off the overall pacing.
Eh I think synchronization would be doable at least with ~1ps resolution-- you just have to make a trigger or fiducial (aka a signal that shows up on the camera at a very precise time) that can be used as a reference. They must already be doing this anyways because they have to stitch together a bunch of different images onto the same time basis so they must have a way of absolutely calibrating that. Fiducials in this sort of context usually are based off of taking some reference laser pulse (in this case you could just use a bit of the illumination pulse) and then routing it through optical cable before it goes to whatever device you're interested in and is converted into a signal it can measure. So, keeping track of the timing is the same as keeping track of the length of your fiber optic cables and their index of refraction-- 1ps corresponds to a ~0.3 mm, which is small but sounds possible to manufacture to that tolerance level especially for shorter cable runs. I know on a lot of laser fusion facilities they are able to get timing jitter between various components down to ~10ps and these facilities are gigantic and have super long cable runs and complicated signal paths, so 1ps for a much more compact setup would be doable I think.
This research is over a decade old. When they first published it, our group literally went, "No way they are doing a trillion fps." Reading their paper tells you that they don't. That bottle video also is an integration of a really large number of pulses. Even the single frame is not a full frame, if I remember correctly. It uses a line aperture instead of circular aperture. While this research group usually does very interesting research, they are also prone to overselling their outputs.
All video is just a very large amount of still images.
Taken in sequence, yes. This was not taken in sequence.
Typically images that actually happened in the sequence shown
Except for claymation... " stand in the place where you li...."
Not to mention that they don’t see photons move, that’s the stuff hitting the sensor, the reflections and the like, but a very short pulse of light. Still cool though.
One sec while I take a toke... "Do we even see anything move, man? Like, it's all just our minds interpretation of photons reflecting or the absence of photons we expect to see blocked by the thing"
Don't even get me started on colors
Isn't a video just a collection of pictures?
Any camera can only really pick up light reflecting or refracting, it's not going to be able to see the light travel directly. This is more or less true of any detector of any phenomenon, it needs to interact with the thing it is detecting. Any attempt to directly see light travel would fail, because it would be definition have to be at an angle away from the detector, in which case it wouldn't reach the detector without being redirected towards it. I also remember reading something at some point about a theoretical frame rate limit (only ~100 faster than this), which still requires light to be "slowed down" in order to observe it reasonably. More sophisticated scientific setups get the system down near absolute zero to achieve this, and I think to increase resolution. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/3/483
You are really showing some naiveness lol. If you had any idea how many scientific measurements are done in this manner you wouldn't be calling this deceiving.
It really is deceiving, the shot of bullet hitting the apple could not be captured with this device, since it is not repeatable. Yet they still use it to illustrate the cameras speed.
I think you're getting caught up in the fact that by their very definition, analogies are not facsimiles. They use it to illustrate the quantity of frames captured and then played back at a "normal" rate to give people some ideas of the difference in speed and how thinly "sliced" it really is. You don't need to know that you couldn't capture that exact event because they are just explaining the overall magnitude differences.
That is true, but i only knew that because i understood how the camera worked beforehand. Nothing in the video indicates that taking such a video is impossible, there is no reason to assume it would be. People watching this video will think that there is a camera that can film a single beam of light, which there isn't. They are not lying, but there not giving people a chance to really understand what is happening, which is a form of dishonesty to me.
So basically the same as a seemingly slow spinning wheel or propeller because the camera frame rate almost matches the rotation of the object. But on a smaller scale.
Isn't taking a video just that though? Taking many pictures and stitching it together into a slideshow?
in a video the pictures are usually taken in sequence, and of one event, while here they photograph multiple identical events (light pulses) thousands of times and then arrange the pictures to form a video of one event. The final video shows only the light part, for the image of the tomato they use a regular camera and put it as background.
so this is **not** a one-take video?
> The final video shows only the light part That's how all cameras work, by capturing light, duh
I do believe you, but I also want to know how you found this info.
it's on their website and intheir paper. [https://web.media.mit.edu/\~raskar/trillionfps/](https://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/) >Can you capture any event at this frame rate? What are the limitations? We can NOT capture arbitrary events at picosecond time resolution. If the event is not repeatable, the required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) will make it nearly impossible to capture the event. We exploit the simple fact that the photons statistically will trace the same path in repeated pulsed illuminations. By carefully synchronizing the pulsed illumination with the capture of reflected light, we record the same pixel at the same exact relative time slot millions of times to accumulate sufficient signal. Our time resolution is 1.71 picosecond and hence any activity spanning smaller than 0.5mm in size will be difficult to record. >How does this compare with capturing videos of bullets in motion? About 50 years ago, Doc Edgerton created stunning images of fast-moving objects such as bullets. We follow in his footsteps. Beyond the scientific exploration, our videos could inspire artistic and educational visualizations. The key technology back then was the use of a very short duration flash to 'freeze' the motion. Light travels about a million times faster than bullet. To observe photons (light particles) in motion requires a very different approach**. The bullet is recorded in a single shot, i.e., there is no need to fire a sequence of bullets. But to observe photons, we need to send the pulse (bullet of light) millions of times into the scene.**
I've only read what you quoted here and not the rest of the page, but this doesn't back up your claim that they are taking individual photos each pulse. They are taking multiple videos to get a clearer definition. In each video the pulse will behave more or less the same way but the camera sensor is so sensitive it will also pick up a lot of interference from the enviroment, essentially static. Running it multiple times lets them elimate the static by comparing each frame of each video and only keeping what is the same, I.e. the pulse, throughout all of them
It absolutely does back up their claim. If the capture time is longer then we wouldn't be able to see the wave. Imagine you want to capture a bursting water balloon. But your camera's exposure time is not 1/30 of a second, but 1 hour. You can record for as long as you like but the best you'll get is a mess that shows that the water did indeed burst all over the place, and the density was higher at the balloon's location. But it won't show the path the water wave took. It doesn't mean they don't need to take multiple images though. As you said, they need to eliminate all the noise, and with such low exposure time, there will be plenty
I think this is the real answer. Eliminating noise is the key to success. I imagine if they use this camera for other stuff it would just be a white mess. Notice how it's completely dark in their test room. Even that doesn't eliminate all noise, like neutrinos and even free electrons could mess it up, i think.
I used to work for one of the guys that did this after he moved on from MIT. They used a special camera that only captures one angle of the scene at a time, then splice them all together in post. And yes, they do multiple runs of the same angle to get a better signal to noise ratio. There's another method with these kinds of super high frame rate cameras that they **VERY** finely adjust the timing of the camera exposure relative to the laser pulse to capture the whole scene. A light pulse, on the whole, travels the same way each time (as in each photon is random/stochastic, but there's so many of them that it comes out to be the same).
They don't even do full frames. It is vertical lines that is stacked together by repeated exposures of pulses of light emitted at known intervals, and mirrors and delays adjusting where in the scene is captured.
Amazing. Very clever and incredible shutter speed.
So that's why they didn't attempt to show the bullet going through the apple.
Yes, the method is called "pump-probe", and it is ised in many research fields in physics and electronics (a sampling oscilloscope, cost effective method to look at multiple GHz signals, functions with the same principle). It requires full reproducibility of the effect you want to look at and, when you have that, you can make movies down to the sub-fs scale, depending on the probe you use.
Science: we take a trillion pictures of the same, repeatable event, because statistically the collage of images would represent the initial event over time. Tik Tom: OMG! ThEy FiLm LiGhT tRaVeL! I beg you to watch my 10 seconds clip, we are starving here.
Thank you. I was thinking how did they took so many photos if light is the fastest thing to exist
Isn’t this all a video is? If someone were able to act out a scene exactly 1000x and you took a frame from each run; is the net result different than filming the first take?
It certainly would be for the actor and camera guy putting in the work. But yeah, as a viewer, it's mostly a technicality. Regardless, absolutely neat AF to see.
So it’s basically the same as an “equivalent time oscilloscope”. It’s nothing terribly revolutionary then
How can a camera capture the light movement, when light has to move more distance to reach the camera.
It is delayed of course. The idea is that they release a very short burst of light and that light will reflect from objects in the scene and arrive at the image sensor at different times based on their distance. The light cannot be imaged until it reflects and reaches the image sensor.
They should film that light with a second even better slow mo camera, that would be cool
And also film my reaction face
Best I can do is someone playing subway surfer on half the screen.
/u/Saend has [probably](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/hey_reddit_what_tattoos_do_you_have/c0tpyls/) already done that
"Of course" 
The light doesn't all hit the wall at the same time so it doesn't all bounce back at the same time either
It's trickery. They don't observe one pulse of light. They observe many pulses but with different delays and then combine it into one video of it.
Extremely misleading title and video in that case!
The extremely misleading part is the apple video. Because you cannot do it with this setup at all. You would need to replace the apple after each frame.
Why?
Because if it was filmed the same way the video of the light was they would have to shoot one bullet for each frame. The camera doesn't actually capture trillion frames per second. It has a shutter speed of a trillionth of a second. So for every frame of the video it's a different beam of light. The picture of it is just taken one trillionth of a second later than the one before it. Those pictures are then put together in to a video. Because everything in the scene is stationary the resulting video looks exactly the same as if the video was captured with a video camera that shot one trillion frames per second.
Damn, this is the explanation that finally made it click for me, thank you. What's really crazy to me is that apparently light doesn't actually move that far in a trillionth of a second. Google says a trillionth of a second is a picosecond, and that light only moves 0.3 mm in a picosecond. Which is just mindblowing that we even have shutter speeds that quick. This video went from amazing, to slightly disappointing, and then back to being pretty mind blowing.
If you are into computers: 1Ghz equals 1 nano second or 1000 pico seconds. The speed of electric signals is in the same order of magnitude as the speed of light, but definitely slower. An electric signal within your CPU travels definitely less than 300mm within one cycle at 1 GHz. Most likely less than 50mm for a CPU at full speed and actual speed of electric signals. The paths within a CPU are never straight. Long story short: a bit cannot travel from one end of your CPU to the other within one cycle. And those guys have managed to signal all pixels at the same time and definitely needed to take cable lengths into account.
The dude took multiple shots of a laser shooting bursts of lights. The. He cherry picked the pictures and stitched them together to make a video. Honestly it's a bit deceptive but still cool tech.
The misleading part is the fact they act as if in one shot, you are seeing the same pulse of light moving through space, instead you see multiple pulses of light at different times. Granted it is still very amazing to capture a pulse of light frozen in any one of those instances. as opposed to the whole scene being lit with every capture like a normal camera would see.
Stroboscopic imaging isn't "deceptive". You shoot a burst of light, wait a given amount of time, and then record a short frame of the scene. Doing it over and over again with varying times gives the same frames as if you had an actual slo-mo camera. Obviously only works on a stationary scene. I'd say the only thing deceptive here is calling it a camera that captures trillions of frames per second. Rather, it's a camera with a trillionth of a second shutter speed.
>I'd say the only thing deceptive here is calling it a camera that captures trillions of frames per second. Rather, it's a camera with a trillionth of a second shutter speed. If you go back and listen to it again, this actually happens in the video lol. Scientist dude says a trillionth of a second, news dude immediately says a trillion frames per second.
I watched it muted. But it's nothing new that media outlets will report technological advances in an inaccurate way. For all intents and purposes, it does record trillions of frames per second. You just need to repeat that second over and over again.
how can our retinas capture the light movement, when light has to move more distance to reach our eyes 👀
OK, Jayden, calm down.
They're recording stills of a light that's strobing and stitching together the animation.
They're not. They capturing snap shots of light. Basically the setup just loops the same thing over and over. You just need to adjust the camera to take the shot at different point for each loop.
Others have described well how the camera actually works but even if if worked as a normal high speed camera you could still see this. In essence you just film the light travelling after it happened. Waiting for the light to reach the camera
A resolution of a trillionth of a second? Did I hear that right? Is resolution the appropriate term here?
Yes. Resolution refers to the 'smallest measurable interval' in the given context. For screens (like you are probably thinking of) that is pixel size. For this it is the frame rate.
Thank you.
Wouldn’t the resolution be a trillionth of a *second*, not a trillionth of a *frame*? He says the latter in the video.
Yeah, he kinda misspoke a little there ("trillionth of a frame per second") but it was immediately cleared up with the interviewer's followup confirming he meant a trillion frames per second. The way he worded it then could even be interpreted to be technically correct but awkward to such a degree it sounds wrong.
New trillion fps console when?
yes because they dont film at a trillion frames per second, they can take a picture that lasts a trillionth of a second. By sending multiple identical flashes of light and taking these high speed photos they make a film by arranging them relative to the flash starts.
Another way of saying is "This camera has a temporal resolution of pico second"
Yeap, resolution just means the ability to tell two elements apart. There is display resolution (pixels, dpi, dot pitch, etc) but also there is time resolution (Hz, which is cycles/samples per second, like the trillion samples per second mentioned in this post).
Stroboscopic imagery. It’s not one flash of light. It’s trillions captured at a slower frequency to give the illusion of propagation as one flash.
Femto-Photography [https://web.media.mit.edu/\~raskar/trillionfps/](https://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography)
It's not trillions either, they only need as many as there are frames in the resulting video.
So, [this is a video of 12 years ago](https://youtu.be/bh2kNoEOZEQ?si=G_j4CeJkJlfISk91) What is the progress we’ve made since then? What did we do with this knowledge?
That was what I was thinking too. The predictions based on this study were wild like seeing around corners or hidden spaces and using light as a source for medical imaging...wonder what happened?
I used to do this research (literally worked for one of the people on this team). Faster methods of capture is something that has advanced with this kind of research and methods that reduce the signal to noise ratio. I'm not really sure where these faster recording methods are ultimately going but one of the technologies used to do it will probably make it's way into cell phones in the not too distant future, SPAD (single photon avalanche diode) arrays are a different type of chip that doesn't suffer from saturating because of too much light (technically not true but the saturation point is much, much higher). An off shoot of this research is cameras that can see around corners using bounced light. There's a lot of applications for that, from exploring moon caves from orbit, to using it to explore closed rooms indirectly (think hostage situation).
Apple's shadow... “Nothing in the universe can travel at the speed of light, they say, forgetful of the shadow’s speed.” – Howard Nemerov
Shadow is the lack of light, like how an empty battery is a lack of charge in aforementioned battery. It’s the default, the zero on the scale. The lack of something. It has no speed, it’s a constant.
People have described my personality like that
Nothing containing mass can travel faster than causality (speed of light.) Do shadows have mass? Are shadows just information? Should I get another weed gummy?
By that description, light can travel faster than the speed of light because it doesn’t have mass. But actually, the more correct catch-all phrase you can use is “information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.” I can very easily create something that goes faster than the speed of light. For example, if you have a laser pointer, you can make the dot on a wall move very fast with a relatively small flick of the wrist. If you hold a very powerful laser and point it as a distant planet, you can make the dot reaching that planet go faster than the speed of light. This is because, from earth, the movement required to “flick” the laser is small, but the dot on the planet needs to move a much larger distance but during the same duration of the “flick.” So you can make a dot of light move faster than the speed of light, but no information can be transmitted by the movement of this dot.
Gravity (gravitational waves) travels at light speed
We need a light first to see that shadow. So it travels at light speed
Yeah that's, uhm, what Nemerov was saying
You are right, my bad
Come on, somebody smart chime in and explain how this magic will change our lives for the better.
It’s for the new iPhone 16
It’s gonna be lighting fast.
We think you’ll love it
This is the best iPhone we've ever made
first we find to do stuff then we find how we can use them
No one knows. But so many discoveries lead us in unlikely directions. Clear glass, first invented in the 1300s, led us to fiber optics in the late 1900s. The discovery of the law of gravity by Newton gave us orbital mechanics. Which needed lightweight computers to go to space, and a use for the solid state transistor, invented in 1947. Which led to the computer, possibly hand held, that you used to ask the question. Science is discovery. Engineering is making use of discoveries.
Work on non euclidean geometry was done hundreds of years before einstein used it for general relativity as well.
Something something astrophysics?
Some if the mysteries about how drugs interact with our bodies are rooted in the speed at which things change, and so being able to dig into the frame by frame of drug interactions should help to improve our understanding and probably efficacy of some drugs.
You put someone in front of that camera naked and you would see their molecules move. New porn just dropped.
I'm studying light waves right now before college, but seeing this is amazing! Physics is goofy y'all, I love it!
Does anyone know how a trillion frame per second camera works? wouldnt that take an exponential amount of storage space?
No, because it would only record for a very short period of time. It doesn't film for an entire second.
It's not a video camera either. They take high speed photos of many many identical pulses then they select ones that when stitched together form this nice movie. The picture of the tomato itself is taken with another camera
Aren’t videos many photos stitched together?
yes but the photos in a video are actually of the same event and are all originally taken in order. Here, they photograph multiple pulses at slightly different times and from those photos build an image that shows one pulse
i guess that makes sense. even still though to see the light hit the wall which would take about 1/300,000 of a second must take up a ton of space even for recording at 1 milisecond. i had to google this to see if it was another fake internet thing because i know little about videography and how this is possible, mindblowing
It’s real. It’s called Femto-Photography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography
> even still though to see the light hit the wall which would take about 1/300,000 of a second In 1/300,000 of a second light moves about 1000 meters. > must take up a ton of space even for recording at 1 milisecond. Light can move about 300,000 meters in a single millisecond. There is no need to record for that long.
Yes sorry I meant 300M mps not 300K
I'm sort of curious how this collides with double slit experiment.
Ive just read that the fastest one right now has 156 trillion frames per second... wow
If you see the light coming at you, you're already lit up. Light is fast.
If you thinks that's fast, you ain't never seen my sister get her 2nd plate at the buffet.
Wow! Last I saw they were at 70 trillion fps, and I thought that was mind bending. This technology has something interesting to teach us about the nature of time. I have no idea what, but something.
Shutter speed greater than speed of light?
Yeah they just make it out of tachyons, easy peasy.
A video that lives up to the name of the subreddit
How on earth did they create a camera that could capture the travel of light??
They had a light source pulsate really quickly and a camera that could take pictures really quickly so it got only one photo of each pulse but they got them at different times along the path so it recreated the image of a single pulse traveling it
They didn’t “filming” is misleading. They’re taking individual photos of a pulsating light and stitching it together so basically the compilation you’re seeing is over a longer span of time than it takes for flash of light to be “filmed”
Are the frames per second faster than the speed of light..??
Guy just repeats everything he's being told in a 'wait what?' tone. Irritating. Camera is cool.
Man it's really annoying how the interviewer keeps acting like this is the first time he's heard of light. The voice over though does exactly what it needs, clarify further what they are doing, the interviewer just keep repeating stuff with a "dumb OMG" voice.
Does that mean that they've made a thing that "travel's" fast than the speed of light? The fact that it can slow it down and see it etc
The fact that this dude didnt understand shadows kills me. "Because the wall is further away"
I assumed he asked that for the benefit of the audience
There is a guy in this presenting a fucking impressive technology. But he still says "600 millions miles per hour". I can bet you, he isn't a scientist
now thats fucking interesting
The slomo guys did a video on this a while ago, it shows a laser pointer traveling through a bottle!
[удалено]
actually this is not how light works
please enlighten us.
Throwing shade
Well, light travels at the speed of light, and besides, it is a particle and a wave at the same time - so the video does not show how light works. It is physically impossible to build such a fast camera - in the tomato scene, the camera should reach at least 299792458000 FPS (xD) to record 1 frame per 1 mm. This is about a stroboscopic effect and a flashing light right next to the camera for hours, just to record a video lasting a few seconds - someone already explained this earlier.
Yay, now I can make my own porn movie.
the framerate standards for gaming pcs are getting out of hand smh
Wtf is 600.000 million miles per hour? Can we have normal units?
Exactly, I want good old furlongs per fortnight, not these woke liberal green socialist units... /s SI units would be great...
did they just claim light is a particle? Someone get Christian Huygens over here!
So if I made a sextape, I would look like a pornstar because my 1 second orgasm would take a year to watch?
It always helps to remember how little we know. Until you do remember how little we know and everything is terrifying.
How old was this again? Nice repost tho
This surpasses my intellect and my discipline to learn how the video (which is light) is able to convey this recording of light.
This also escapes my understanding.
I don't mean to be a hater, yet 1 trillion fps is not a resolution. That has no dimensions. The resolution is the size of the image or frame captured. Usually a number followed by Megapixels or just M, and in video @60fps (or in this case @10¹²fps).
Resolution of time, or time resolution
How can the camera catch the light faster than the light travels to the camera?
Imagine 1 light minute. Imagine 1 light month. Imagine 1 light year. Imagine 1000 light years. Imagine 1 million years. Imagine 100 million years and it's not even close the vastness of the universe. This is just insane. We're not even a "dot" in the known universe in the scale of things.
Looks like a feature iPhones will have in 100 years from now - for the extra storage option.
trillion frames my asshole. light doesn't even move that fast.
This video cut is purposely misleading. They did not catch the movement of one pulse of light at a trillion frames per second. They use Femto-Photography to piece together thousands of separate videos. Each picture (frame) of those videos had an exposure length of one trillionth of a second. As [RevolutionaryDot7](https://www.reddit.com/user/RevolutionaryDot7/) mentioned in his comment this video is from 12 years ago, and the complete version explains what is going on: Femto-Photography [https://web.media.mit.edu/\~raskar/trillionfps/](https://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-photography)
Is the smallest interval of time we could hypothetically record at the planck length?
Holy shit, finally something worthy of being posted here. My god this is the most interesting thing I think I've ever seen on this sub.
Unbelievable!
Seriously... I jussssst watched this video on YT haha. Still interesting AF.
Alright I just a matter of time to run my favorite FPS game to those frame/speed
This is insane technology...wow
I used to imagine being able to see this as a kid.... I used to turn the lights on in the bathroom and imagine watching the light slowly fill up the room and bounce around. It's incredible we can actually see this.
This is fucking cool as hell!
not fast enough for gamers
Who made this video? Can you please credit them?
Pfff ..even with this camera, you can't film how long I last in bed
What can we learn from this?
u/savevideo
They captured light. Now we will only live in darkness
dumb tiktok oneliner comments as usual for this sub, go back to tiktok you brainrot kids.
How does it work? This camera can't work faster then speed of light, so what is the solution?
One option is to have a precisely controlled light source that emits multiple short pulses, and set the camera to trigger with a slightly different delay for each pulse.
Nvidia’s gpu will melt with all that fps
This is mind bogglingly unbelievable.