Comments

farss wrote on 6/20/2012, 11:37 PM
"Similarly, cameras mounted in game parks or at scenic lookouts would allow online tourists to examine a scene in much more detail than if they were actually there."

As if we aren't already devoid enough of reasons to get off our posteriors.

I also want to know how they're going to deal with the problem of dust and heat haze between the lens and the subject. I recall a gigapixel image of the Grand Canyon which really was a bit of a bust, when you zoomed in on the far wall of the canyon all you could see was irk and it sure looked better than that from a copter.

Bob.
JJKizak wrote on 6/21/2012, 6:46 AM
Nice. Wonder if I can put that on the Vegas timeline. I heard one of the golf anouncers the other day say the slow motion golf swing anaylizer was 68,000 frames per second. Wonder if that's true.
JJK
farss wrote on 6/21/2012, 8:13 AM
"I heard one of the golf anouncers the other day say the slow motion golf swing anaylizer was 68,000 frames per second. "

Say the swing takes 1 second and it's played back at 30fps.
That 1 second is going to take 37 minutes to playback.

"Wonder if that's true"

See above :)

150fps to 500fps is enough for most things humans can sort of see. For explosions and bullets you need higher frame rates.

Bob.
Former user wrote on 6/21/2012, 8:57 AM
1 Trillion frames per second
R0cky wrote on 6/21/2012, 6:26 PM
A place I used to work we made flash x-ray systems for stop motion photography through smoke and explosions.

The aperture time was 3 nsec or 333 million frames/sec if it was video. It was stills however but it was a good business as the explosion blew up the xray tube after one exposure and they had to buy another for a couple of K USD.

rocky