https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4TdHrMi6doI'm not into science just got recommended it on youtube.I got to the mirror part and I don't get it. He says he has a camera that can shoot 2 billion fps 1x1 pixel video. So he will use a mirror to point the camera at different places, and does it for 1280x720 pixels? Like for each frame or how? And if he can get 1280x720 pixels for each frame then isn't it actually 1280x720 times 2 billion frames per second? Help me out, I couldn't enjoy the video after that.
The camera is just 1 pixel. So he scans the room with this 1 pixel. To capture the dynamic light scene, he just fires a new flash of light for each pixel and each frame. It's carefully timed so that each time the 1-pixel image is taken, the scene is exactly the same.
>>16824379I get it even less then. So position camera, shoot laser, record it for some time? Then reposition camera, shoot new laser and record? He snips together a video from 1280 times 720 different videos of different laser shots? And I'm supposed to believe he made an actual 2 billion fps video of light, and didn't just piece together pixels arbitrarily to get the result he wants?
>>16824395>He snips together a video from 1280 times 720 different videos of different laser shots? Yes>And I'm supposed to believe he made an actual 2 billion fps video of light, and didn't just piece together pixels arbitrarily to get the result he wants?You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
no he fired the laser with different delays, so each frame is another laser fire but the camera is set to capture picture with different delay
>>16824869nvm that was another older video where they done it that way
>>16824395>and didn't just piece together pixels arbitrarily to get the result he wants?Piece together 921,600 pixels to make it look mildly cooler for an internet video? why even bother actually making the laser and shit at that point
>>16824413Brian Haidet has a PhD in Materials Science and doesn't have a history of lying that I know of. Seems like a trustworthy fellow. Do you have any evidence of impropriety?
>>16824413>>16824878Thanks guys. I'm not saying it's all fake, it's just that it's disappointing it isn't actually a video of light going but something that looks like it and I feel cheated. Maybe the setup and all is what should be interesting but it doesn't feel that impressive for me this way.
>>16825066He explains it all in the video. Watch it again and keep watching it until you understand.
>>16825066Yeah, the only nontrivial part is scanning the image with the mirrors, but it's about what I would expect from a YouTube video. Actual high-end ICCD framing cameras with high resolution are millions of dollars (even the 200M fps one I use was ~400k 10 years ago), and anyone who knows how to make one has better things to do than make videos
>>16825066It is just a little bit of cheating, but really all the millions of flashes are exactly identical, so I don't really see any problem. It's just not the SAME flash in flight. But if he could somehow picture the same flash, the movie would look the same as now.I was quite impressed with this work. It's a lab grade experiment. Also saw it while scrolling youtube a few days ago.
>>16824878>Piece together 921,600 pixels to make it look mildly cooler for an internet video?ffmpeg ain't rocket surgery, Sergeant.
>>16825388They don't mean piece together that many 1 pixel videos into a single video file, they mean individually choose the timings of each pixel to make it look more interesting than the unmodified video would look.
>>16825549I mean a million frames are ezpz for ffmpeg to process. I don't care if the the frames are a point or your mom. Ezpz.
