« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: That's impossible ! (well, not really)  (Read 3573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
That's impossible ! (well, not really)
« on: February 20, 2013, 04:17:39 pm »
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/mille-millards-images-seconde-lumiere-capturee-vol-n22426.html

Use google translate to read it.

Quick calculations proved that it's impossible :
A camera fast enough to record 1 trillion fps would require a dream CPU and a 10^19 bytes/sec write memory.
If they did it like they explain, it would have taken over 285388 years (for the 3:18 vid) at 22fps (a PAL movie is 25 fps). Let alone the timing precision required which is probably unreachable.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 02:59:00 pm by Streetwalker »
Logged

Offline nikitouzz

  • LV5 Advanced (Next: 300)
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
  • Rating: +22/-1
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible !
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2013, 04:27:11 pm »
Isn't possible O_o but if they say this... we looked after in other website because is it's real this will make the buzz.

i find funny than is we run at 300 000 km/s for one hour, we run in real 55 minutes... relativities law :D
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 04:28:27 pm by nikitouzz »
Logged
mes records personels :

2x2x2 : 2.18 secondes / 2x2x2 une main : 21.15 secondes / 2x2x2 yeux bandés : 47.59
3x3x3 : 5.97 secondes / 3x3x3 une main : 49.86 secondes
4x4x4 : 1.49 minutes / 4x4x4 une main : 6.50 minutes
5x5x5 : 4.10 minutes / 5x5x5 une main : 18.02 minutes
6x6x6 : 8.10 minutes
7x7x7 : 16.03 minutes
9x9x9 : 58.26 minutes

megaminx : 5.59 minutes / pyraminx : 7.91 secondes / square-one : 1.07 minutes

Offline willrandship

  • Omnimagus of the Multi-Base.
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2953
  • Rating: +98/-13
  • Insert sugar to begin programming subroutine.
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible !
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2013, 05:26:32 pm »
That has been around for a while. It doesn't work the way that article says.

It cheats a fair amount. It takes a super-short image of one part, with the timing adjusted slightly each time. It takes several hours to do. They piece the frames together afterward. It should be noted that it's all monochrome. They recolored the coke bottle after they made the video.
Logged

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible !
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2013, 02:58:39 pm »
Whoops, I did my math wrong.
Also, how do they get such precise timing ? I don't know a clock that pulses 10^12 times/sec. *.*
Logged

Offline pimathbrainiac

  • Occasionally I make projects
  • Members
  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1731
  • Rating: +136/-23
  • dagaem
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible ! (well, not really)
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2013, 03:06:15 pm »
HOLY FREAKING CRAP THAT IS AWESOME!!!

* pimathbrainiac faints
Logged
I am Bach.

Offline willrandship

  • Omnimagus of the Multi-Base.
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2953
  • Rating: +98/-13
  • Insert sugar to begin programming subroutine.
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible ! (well, not really)
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2013, 07:03:15 pm »
Clock multipliers can easily push you up and over the terahertz barrier. So, while we don't have any crystals that frequency and hence no lasers, we can easily take images that quickly.

Lots of people use terahertz imaging, as a quick google shows. Take a look.
Logged

Offline Levak

  • LV9 Veteran (Next: 1337)
  • *********
  • Posts: 1002
  • Rating: +208/-39
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: That's impossible ! (well, not really)
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 01:58:20 am »
Quote from: Streetwalker on February 20, 2013, 04:17:39 pm
If they did it like they explain, it would have taken over 285388 years (for the 3:18 vid) at 22fps (a PAL movie is 25 fps). Let alone the timing precision required which is probably unreachable.

Well, as they said it, no :
Quote
la caméra n'enregistre qu'une "tranche", à l'instar d'un scanner médical, et il faut d'abord réaliser plusieurs milliers de captures en décalant légèrement l'image pour obtenir des données en deux dimensions

I've seen months ago this :
&feature=player_embedded
Logged
I do not get mad at people, I just want them to learn the way I learnt.
My website - TI-Planet - iNspired-Lua

Offline AngelFish

  • Is this my custom title?
  • Administrator
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3242
  • Rating: +270/-27
  • I'm a Fishbot
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible ! (well, not really)
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 03:00:59 am »
Quote from: willrandship on February 21, 2013, 07:03:15 pm
Clock multipliers can easily push you up and over the terahertz barrier. So, while we don't have any crystals that frequency and hence no lasers

We actually have lasers several orders of magnitude faster than terahertz frequency. Once you get into the nanosecond range and below though, lasers tend to use mode-locking to generate such short pulses, which is almost certainly how the laser here works. The downside is that such lasers tend to have huge bandwidths, which hinders a lot of their potential applications.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 03:01:14 am by Qwerty.55 »
Logged
∂²Ψ    -(2m(V(x)-E)Ψ
---  = -------------
∂x²        ℏ²Ψ

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
Re: That's impossible ! (well, not really)
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 04:06:27 am »
Quote from: Levak on February 22, 2013, 01:58:20 am
Quote from: Streetwalker on February 20, 2013, 04:17:39 pm
If they did it like they explain, it would have taken over 285388 years (for the 3:18 vid) at 22fps (a PAL movie is 25 fps). Let alone the timing precision required which is probably unreachable.

Well, as they said it, no :
Quote
la caméra n'enregistre qu'une "tranche", à l'instar d'un scanner médical, et il faut d'abord réaliser plusieurs milliers de captures en décalant légèrement l'image pour obtenir des données en deux dimensions

I've seen months ago this :
&feature=player_embedded
Yeah actually my calculation is wrong. Also, 22fps was the rate at which I assumed they took pics, not that they were using a 22fps camera.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »