Archived from groups: rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
On 8/5/2005, none managed to type:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:31:16 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
> <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/2005, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net managed to type:
>>> In rec.video.production Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
>>>> genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> what would you edit and burn with? i would think something like that
>>>>> would greatly exceed dvd playback capabilities, and would bring
>>>>> harddrives and editing programs to a crawl. but i'm new to video, so i
>>>>> could be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, just like you can't edit or watch high-speed film.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Truly sorry, but just couldn't resist.
>>>>
>>>> I'll be checking out the links to find out what the recording protocol
>>>> is, and how they cram that much image data down ANY pipe.
>>>
>>> 10 gbps is not hard to do over short distances. But it is too fast for a
>>> normal disk storage. RAM could keep up until it is full (in a few
>>> seconds). Some of the things I can imagine using a high speed camera for
>>> would also involve some kind of trigger that would follow the event of
>>> interest and could tell a computer to stop storing video in a big RAM loop,
>>> leaving me with the last few seconds which should cover the event. Then
>>> dump it to disk over the next few minutes, and edit it down to the cool
>>> parts. Still, that would be a lot of RAM. However, if you can afford the
>>> camera you can probably also afford the RAM.
>>
>> I don't know why your post in this thread is the one that reminded me
>> of this, but what the heck.
>>
>> When I was a young physicist, there were ultra high speed film cameras
>> that basically put a strip of 35 mm film, maybe five feet long, on
>> inside of a half drum (emulsion facing the center), a lens at the
>> center of the flat side, and a rapidly spinning prism to send the light
>> from the lens to the film. Basically, the shutter was open long enough
>> for the image to go from one end of the film to the other, maybe a
>> millisecond in all.
>>
>> As I recall it this was a thin slit of an image, not a whole frame, so
>> you'd get a high speed image of just a slice (or cross-section) of
>> reality, but I vaguely remember similar configurations taking perhaps a
>> hundred or two frames in a time on the order of milliseconds.
>>
>> This was definitely analog.
> The high speed cameras were made by Edggerton engineering.
> We used them in the service to record weapons and munitions tests.
> As I recall something on the order of 1000 frames a second or faster.
> I remember them eating up 800-1200 ft reels of 35mm film in just
> seconds.
>>
>> Gino
This is very different - much more powerful - than what I recalled. 800
or more feet of film in seconds. Whoosh!
I wonder if anyone is still doing that sort of stuff these days?
Gino
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram