21–30 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 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.
How long can they maintain that frame rate for?
It 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…
"The first time it was used ... the process was recorded in 25 frames taken at an interval of 400 femtoseconds" 1 / (400 femtoseconds) = 2 500 000 000 000 hertz So definitely in the "trillion fps" for a very short period of time with multiple frames.
It's almost like they are underselling it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 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.
How long can they maintain that frame rate for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’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 Also, the music is pretty cringey, so I’d just leave it muted...
Watching 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that a rate such as "x frames per second" doesn't mean it needs to be able to operate for the full second. That would be like saying you can sprint at "12 miles per hour" means you can run all of 12 miles in an hour.
Some people can...
The fact that "statement A does not imply statement B" itself does not mean "statement A implies statement B is false".
Just because the phrase "X can run at 12 miles per hour" does not imply that "X can run 12 miles in an hour", it does not mean the ummonk was claiming that no one can run 12 miles in an hour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 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.
How long can they maintain that frame rate for?
Note that what we want to observe with those cams are very short, transient phenomenons. When I was doing my internship at a particle accelerator called GANIL, we were only recording 0.5 second, which already represented close to 1TB worth of raw data. It takes months to interpret and analyze results.
EDIT: typo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 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.
How long can they maintain that frame rate for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’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 Also, the music is pretty cringey, so I’d just leave it muted...
Watching 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…
It 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…
I 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.