Holy fucking shit. We can't even see more than 60fps IIRC.
Yes children. This camera is [I]better than the human eye.[/I]
If anything, it needs to film [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V2eCFsDkK0]this[/url]
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33705018]Yes children. This camera is [I]better than the human eye.[/I][/QUOTE]
uh every camera higher than consumer-grade has been better than the human eye for about 10 years now
also the human eye doesn't see in frames per second. each retinal cell sends its own independent data stream (it's also compressed quite a bit on the way to the brain)
Film someone getting slapped across the face
Watch the horror for 30 minutes of a horribly distorted face getting slowly slapped by a flappy hand.
Holy shit, you can actually see the light waves?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33705071]uh every camera higher than consumer-grade has been better than the human eye for about 10 years now
also the human eye doesn't see in frames per second. each retinal cell sends its own independent data stream (it's also compressed quite a bit on the way to the brain)[/QUOTE]
Cameras with framerates higher than we are able to process have been around since about 1917.
And this was filmed in 1887:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif[/img]
[editline]13th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33705141]Film someone getting slapped across the face
Watch the horror for 30 minutes of a horribly distorted face getting slowly slapped by a flappy hand.[/QUOTE]
Er, more like, wait a month for the hand to move a millimeter. And I'm probably undershooting.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33705071]uh every camera higher than consumer-grade has been better than the human eye for about 10 years now
also the human eye doesn't see in frames per second. each retinal cell sends its own independent data stream (it's also compressed quite a bit on the way to the brain)[/QUOTE]
[img]http://timenerdworld.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/586_bioshock.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1[/img]
ZING.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;33705335]Their technique doesn't really allow it to capture motion, It's the post processing that makes it possible to see the light propagation in "motion"[/QUOTE]
Besides, you don't need something THAT fast to capture a process that slow. (Relative to photons)
[QUOTE=paul simon;33705172]Cameras with framerates higher than we are able to process have been around since about 1917.
And this was filmed in 1887:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]
Fun fact:
If I remember correctly, the man who shot that film made a bet with his friend that at some point of a horses gallop it's completely airborne.
Well he won that bet it seems.
[QUOTE=Hullu V3;33705437]Fun fact:
If I remember correctly, the man who shot that film made a bet with his friend that at some point of a horses gallop it's completely airborne.
Well he won that bet it seems.[/QUOTE]
Well uh.. Shit... I owe that man a shilling. TOO BAD HE'S DEAD AHAHAHAHA
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33705018]Holy fucking shit. We can't even see more than 60fps IIRC.
Yes children. This camera is [I]better than the human eye.[/I][/QUOTE]
The Eye does not see in FPS for fucks sake.
Holy shit god damn.
Thank you for posting this, this is probably the coolest thing I've seen all year.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDwQ0hnx-OE&feature=channel_video_title[/media]
The first scene here is fucking fascinating because of the mirror, and the scene starting at 2:05 was mindblowing as well.
I bet this will make physics class 10x more interesting for kids in the future
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
