"The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second"

What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".

I enjoy a photographic challenge, but that's about the last thing I'd
ever wanna shoot.
They ain't got a lens long enough.

In article , Ed Ruf
writes
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:19:31 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Andy Williams
wrote:

Rich wrote:

I'm not sure how they did those shots, but there have been
cameras that have used things like spinning octagonal or
multi-sided mirrors that could "flash" exposures across several
feet of filmstock in a fraction of a second. For slower (but still
fast) shooting, cameras have been equipped with high speed
motor winders that took movie film at a high rate of speed,
thousands of frames per second.

Mechanical devices are orders of magnitude too slow to achieve these
results. Repeat of a post to r.p.e.35mm:

Alan Browne wrote:

Probably a high speed cine camera, eg, 1000's of frames per second with
exposure times on the order of 1/4000 to 1/10,000

Exposure time was much less, on the order of ten nanoseconds. Google
rapatronic. Each camera took one frame. A starting point:

http://simplethinking.com/home/rapat...hotographs.htm

Another type of device used for quick exposures is an image converter
camera. I used a Navy surplus 1950 EG&G one in grad school. IIRC, the
framing module would do three 10nS frames at microsecond spacing.
For the theory see, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0950-7671/38/3/306

Indeed, and here is a more recent example:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2171151224.html

There are solid state versions available now as well, which are capable
of being synchronised with a high speed laser pulse to illuminate a
depth of less than a metre at ranges of many km, enabling a full 3D
structure to be visualised.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Ed Ruf wrote:

Andy Williams wrote:

Exposure time was much less, on the order of ten nanoseconds. Google
rapatronic.

Another type of device used for quick exposures is an image converter
camera. I used a Navy surplus 1950 EG&G one in grad school.

Know what the E in EG&G stands for? Edgerton. The inventor of
rapatronic photography among other things. Very interesting company.
--
Andy Williams

Very interesting thread. The bomb images are haunting
weird alien strange beautiful horrific etc.

I'd love to find some real detail on the rapatronic cameras.
Diagrams, schematics, papers "here's how it works". Googling
came up with bupkis in this regard. Anyone got some good links ?

-- stan

On 15 Feb 2006 09:42:52 -0800, "Annika1980"
wrote:

What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".

I enjoy a photographic challenge, but that's about the last thing I'd
ever wanna shoot.
They ain't got a lens long enough.

Nuclear explosions are beautiful. You can't help but be impressed
when they turn a few pounds of substance into that much energy.
For those interested, check out the movie, "Trinity and Beyond"
the best film made about the subject.
-Rich

"Rich" wrote in message
news
On 15 Feb 2006 09:42:52 -0800, "Annika1980"
wrote:

What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".

I enjoy a photographic challenge, but that's about the last thing I'd
ever wanna shoot.
They ain't got a lens long enough.

Nuclear explosions are beautiful. You can't help but be impressed
when they turn a few pounds of substance into that much energy.
For those interested, check out the movie, "Trinity and Beyond"
the best film made about the subject.
-Rich

I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
picture at one, one millionth of a second. Also, I don't think that kind of
speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much brighter
than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking a
picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.
It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but the
ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the shutter
be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to record
it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
answer either question. IOW, they don't need that kind of speed to freeze
the motion, and even if they did, they don't have any film fast enough to be
able to record the event at that speed. We certainly don't have any film
fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we? Most high
speed photographs are frozen in time by the strobe light, and not by the
shutter. (Bullets going through eggs, and the like)

Matt Clara wrote:
Interesting--I posted a link to these two days ago.


I'm sorry, it just didn't occur to me that a thread with the title "Was
this taken with a Leica?" was about an atomic blast. Regards.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm back, did you miss me?

What would you shoot at such 1/100,000,000 shutter speed?

But of course, perhaps the most spectacular thing possible, an atomic
blast! The "first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation".

Enjoy

http://www.rapidnewswire.com/atom.htm

William Graham wrote:

I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
picture at one, one millionth of a second.

It is not a shutter in the ordinary mechanical sense, of course. It's
an electronic effect. Google Kerr effect.

Also, I don't think that kind of
speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much brighter
than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking a
picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.

You are ignoring the inverse square law. The Sun is 93 million miles
away. A nuclear explosion can be photographed from seven miles away.
The fireball is about 60 - 100 million degrees C, 10,000 times hotter
and about 10^16 times brighter than the surface of the sun.

It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but the
ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the shutter
be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to record
it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
answer either question. IOW, they don't need that kind of speed to freeze
the motion, and even if they did, they don't have any film fast enough to be
able to record the event at that speed. We certainly don't have any film
fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we? Most high
speed photographs are frozen in time by the strobe light, and not by the
shutter. (Bullets going through eggs, and the like)

You're not appreciating the violence of a nuclear explosion. You
could use Ektar 25 and 10^-8 s exposure and get perfect results.
--
Andy Williams

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm William Graham wrote:


I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
picture at one, one millionth of a second.

Two crossed polarizers with something in between which twists
polarization in response to electricity or magnetism.
The Kerr cell is the most common example. Someone posted that
these shots used a Faraday shutter which is similar in concept.

Also, I don't think that kind of
speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much brighter
than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking a
picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.

The sun is nearly half a million times brighter than sunlight reflected from
a grey card. Staring directly at the sun can cause permanent damage
to your eyes in a remarkably short time.

It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but the
ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the shutter
be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to record
it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
answer either question.

Atomic explosions are darned quick, especially at the very start.
A small atomic bomb can produce a 90 foot fireball in 1/10000th
of a second. If you want to freeze that fireball one millionth
of a second isn't too fast at all.

This was all done half a century ago. It worked fine.

We certainly don't have any film
fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we?

If you were to shoot the disc of the sun on ISO 100 slide film
at f/16 and one millionth of a second, it would still show
as a nearly clear spot on the film. The sun is insanely bright.

Peter.
--

"Peter Irwin" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm William Graham wrote:


I don't know how I would go about building a shutter that could take a
picture at one, one millionth of a second.

Two crossed polarizers with something in between which twists
polarization in response to electricity or magnetism.
The Kerr cell is the most common example. Someone posted that
these shots used a Faraday shutter which is similar in concept.

Also, I don't think that kind of
speed would be necessary. After all, the blast can't be that much
brighter
than the sun, which is simply a continuous nuclear explosion. So, taking
a
picture of a nuclear blast would be like taking a photograph of the sun.

The sun is nearly half a million times brighter than sunlight reflected
from
a grey card. Staring directly at the sun can cause permanent damage
to your eyes in a remarkably short time.

It's true that it isn't the brightness that they were worried about, but
the
ability to freeze the motion. So the question is, how fast must the
shutter
be in order to do this, and do they have film that is fast enough to
record
it at that speed. I think that a millionth of a second is way too fast to
answer either question.

Atomic explosions are darned quick, especially at the very start.
A small atomic bomb can produce a 90 foot fireball in 1/10000th
of a second. If you want to freeze that fireball one millionth
of a second isn't too fast at all.

This was all done half a century ago. It worked fine.

We certainly don't have any film
fast enough to record the sun at a millionth of a second, do we?

If you were to shoot the disc of the sun on ISO 100 slide film
at f/16 and one millionth of a second, it would still show
as a nearly clear spot on the film. The sun is insanely bright.

Peter.

Perhaps you are right....I've always used neutral density filters to shoot
eclipses........I did see an observatory that specialized in the sun near
Stanford University....They projected it with optics from the roof of the
building onto a table about 30 inches high. The image was about two feet in
diameter, and was marvelously clear and sharp....You could see solar flares
in real time.....(8 minute delayed, of course.)