Rumor - 32000th of a second, who would have thought?

[GaryLH]

http://www.fujirumors.com/new-firmw...tter-movie-capabilities-faster-af-new-source/

Though this is nothing more then a rumor....

Electronic & electronically controlled mechanical shutters have brought us 8000th of a second shutters. Electronic shutters have given us consistent high speed and quiet shutters. I would assume that 1/32000 is in the domain of the electronic shutter.

Growing up in the 60s - 70s.. We would have never dreamed of shutters speeds as fast as this (1/8000th) let alone even imagine 1/32000th for our cameras.

Of course the electronic shutters Achilles heel is the distortion effect (jello) of objects moving across the horizontal plane.

Gary

 

[burancap]

I can imagine future eBay ads. "High speeds sound about right..."

 

[x-ray]

I'm a product of the 60's too. Top speeds were 1/1000 and many cameras only went to 1/500, even SLRs. The old graflexes though went to somewhere around 1/1250 or so with a huge focal plane shutter.

In the 70's I worked for union carbide and did a lot of ultra high speed motion picture up to 44,000 frames per second at 1/100,000 of a second shutter speed.

 

[Spanik]

Well, the day they have 256000 iso without noise that may be useful. Right now I'm mostly at f/4 and 1/4 to 1/15 or worse with my MF stuff.

Then you can always use a Kerr cell if you need a really fast shutter.

 

[btgc]

Sounds great. Hope to see flood of non-scientific amateur pictures based on super short shutter times. Something beyond girls throwing hair out of water.

 

[GaryLH]

I'm a product of the 60's too. Top speeds were 1/1000 and many cameras only went to 1/500, even SLRs. The old graflexes though went to somewhere around 1/1250 or so with a huge focal plane shutter.

In the 70's I worked for union carbide and did a lot of ultra high speed motion picture up to 44,000 frames per second at 1/100,000 of a second shutter speed.

I remember a series of stop action shots (I don't remember who did them), back in that time period, that showed things like
- objects piecing fruit
- round object dropped into liquids like milk
- glass being shattered

Do u happen to know what shutter speed they used?

Thanks
Gary

 

[Scrambler]

I remember a series of stop action shots (I don't remember who did them), back in that time period, that showed things like - objects piecing fruit - round object dropped into liquids like milk - glass being shattered Do u happen to know what shutter speed they used? Thanks Gary

the early photography of that sort used strobes: very short duration flash in a darkened room.

 

[helvetica]

the early photography of that sort used strobes: very short duration flash in a darkened room.

Indeed. The shutter speed is likely "bulb"!

 

[lukitas]

Oh yes. I did a few of those for school : pouring water into a glass...
Fun project. White background, plain glass, black panels to 'draw' the glass and the water. And the strobe of course. Keeping the studio dark for maximum contrast.
Good memories.

 

[honozooloo]

Damn...If true, you can expect me to be putting a bunch of ND filters on the for sale forum quite soon. If Fuji really can find a way to make this happen, they've just created a software based solution to a problem that until now I had to solve with good old fashioned filtering. Impressive.

Personally, I'm now curious what an electronic shutter would mean in terms of flash sync on the Fuji cameras that would hypothetically support this. I understand what the practical considerations limiting sync speeds on conventionally-shuttered cameras are (leaf, focal plane)...but I'm assuming that an electronic shutter and well-written firmware could theoretically support an even higher sync speed? If memory serves (and a google search may prove me wrong here), a few older Nikon DSLRs used hybrid mechanical/electronic shutters and so were capable of pretty ludicrous sync speeds.

Funny, but other than shooting wide open in the snow on a cloudless sunny day, I don't really know how or why 1/32000th is even necessary. Then again, some of the awesome-est stuff ever has all been completely unnecessary. 😎

 

[GaryLH]

the early photography of that sort used strobes: very short duration flash in a darkened room.

Thanks

That makes sense. Now I remember. Getting old.

Gary

 

[x-ray]

I remember a series of stop action shots (I don't remember who did them), back in that time period, that showed things like
- objects piecing fruit
- round object dropped into liquids like milk
- glass being shattered

Do u happen to know what shutter speed they used?

Thanks
Gary

In the 40's Dr Egerton invented the strobe light and did a lot of that imagery. His strobes were extremely short duration and could stop a bullet cutting a playing card in half. When auto strobes like the Vvitar 283 came on the market I think it could do something around a1/40,000 flash duration.

In the 70's I did some with a 283 showing a light bulb imploding when hit with a hammer. I did all kinds of fun short flash duration pix.

Later I did a series of motion picture pieces using a borrowed Fastex high speed 16mm camera. I can't remember the frame rate but think it was around 6-8k frames / second. Later where I worked we did a lot of work with a camera that would do 44,000 fps. I seem to remember it rumming on the order of 400ft of film in 1/10 second. We used FF33 flash bulbs with a 1.75 second peak to illuminate the subject. Regular #3 bulbs were fine for the really high speed stuff.

I was working for union carbide corp in the nuclear division. We studied explosions on a small scale and drop tests from 440 feet with a 40 ton nuclear materials container hitting a steel and concrete pad. We were studying what happens to one in a truck collision. Several had ruptured in highway accidents and the Feds wanted to see how it was possible.

It's a very interesting world when you slow 1/10 of a second down to 11 minutes.

At the time I was at the Lab nasa had a camera that they used to study ticket ignitions and shot 150,000 frames per second.

It's really interesting to see these cameras and how they work. The Fastex shreaded about 20 ft of film at the end of a roll but the Redlake didn't damage a frame at 44,000. If you're interested in high speed movies the Redlake Hicam can be bout very cheap now since everything is going video. The downside is you need a fat wallet to feed it.

 

[burancap]

So incredibly interesting! Thanks for sharing!

 

[GaryLH]

Thanks..very interesting indeed..
Gary

In the 40's Dr Egerton invented the strobe light and did a lot of that imagery. His strobes were extremely short duration and could stop a bullet cutting a playing card in half. When auto strobes like the Vvitar 283 came on the market I think it could do something around a1/40,000 flash duration.

In the 70's I did some with a 283 showing a light bulb imploding when hit with a hammer. I did all kinds of fun short flash duration pix.

Later I did a series of motion picture pieces using a borrowed Fastex high speed 16mm camera. I can't remember the frame rate but think it was around 6-8k frames / second. Later where I worked we did a lot of work with a camera that would do 44,000 fps. I seem to remember it rumming on the order of 400ft of film in 1/10 second. We used FF33 flash bulbs with a 1.75 second peak to illuminate the subject. Regular #3 bulbs were fine for the really high speed stuff.

I was working for union carbide corp in the nuclear division. We studied explosions on a small scale and drop tests from 440 feet with a 40 ton nuclear materials container hitting a steel and concrete pad. We were studying what happens to one in a truck collision. Several had ruptured in highway accidents and the Feds wanted to see how it was possible.

It's a very interesting world when you slow 1/10 of a second down to 11 minutes.

At the time I was at the Lab nasa had a camera that they used to study ticket ignitions and shot 150,000 frames per second.

It's really interesting to see these cameras and how they work. The Fastex shreaded about 20 ft of film at the end of a roll but the Redlake didn't damage a frame at 44,000. If you're interested in high speed movies the Redlake Hicam can be bout very cheap now since everything is going video. The downside is you need a fat wallet to feed it.

 

[rscheffler]

It's really interesting to see these cameras and how they work. The Fastex shreaded about 20 ft of film at the end of a roll but the Redlake didn't damage a frame at 44,000. If you're interested in high speed movies the Redlake Hicam can be bout very cheap now since everything is going video. The downside is you need a fat wallet to feed it.

Yes, very interesting.... If Kodak could trigger a super slow-mo revival, they'd be able to find a new market for their struggling motion picture film division...

As for a 1/32000 electronic shutter and jello effects - this could be avoided if it was a global shutter - full image readout at the exact same time.

IIRC the 1D I still have will do 1/16000, but I don't ever remember using that setting for any real world applications. And I believe all of its shutter speeds over a certain setting were fully electronic and not reliant on the mechanical shutter, hence a reason one could sync non-dedicated strobes to absurdly high shutter speeds, to the point where the problem was the flash duration, or timing the shutter to coincide with peak flash output.

 

[x-ray]

The 1D was an excellent camera. I switched from a Nikon D1x to a 1D and 1Ds and liked the 1D best. Loved the color out of the CCD and especially loved the high flash sync speed. I can't remember where the shutter actually performed as a shutter either.

 

[rwintle]

If memory serves (and a google search may prove me wrong here), a few older Nikon DSLRs used hybrid mechanical/electronic shutters and so were capable of pretty ludicrous sync speeds.

I have a D70S (circa 2005 I guess) - it and the previous D70 had such a shutter, but "only" sync as fast as 1/500th. I used to love my wife's Sony DSC-R1, which I believe had an electronic shutter and would happily sync at its maximum speed of 1/2000th (and f/2.8 wide open, ahhh that Zeiss glass).

 

[honozooloo]

Later where I worked we did a lot of work with a camera that would do 44,000 fps. I seem to remember it rumming on the order of 400ft of film in 1/10 second.

Thanks for sharing x-ray! You've gotten to do some amazing stuff. That these cameras could do what they did blows my mind. My math isnt the best but wouldn't a camera running through ~4000 feet of film per second be moving said film at around like 2700 mph!? What a monster machine (I cant even comprehend how they got over friction issues at that kind of speed). I imagine these cameras were used to capture less than even 1/10 sec of an event, but still...crazy amounts of precision while dealing with such force.

You sir, may very well be the winner of the "I've gotten to work with the coolest cameras ever" award on RFF (is that even a thing? it should be).

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Personally, I'm now curious what an electronic shutter would mean in terms of flash sync on the Fuji cameras that would hypothetically support this. I understand what the practical considerations limiting sync speeds on conventionally-shuttered cameras are (leaf, focal plane)...but I'm assuming that an electronic shutter and well-written firmware could theoretically support an even higher sync speed? .. .

But flash duration is finite. On some big studio flashes I think I recall that it was as long as 1/300 and apparently 1/1000 is quite usual, so any faster flash synch would be of limited use.

Cheers,

R.

 

[honozooloo]

But flash duration is finite. On some big studio flashes I think I recall that it was as long as 1/300 and apparently 1/1000 is quite usual, so any faster flash synch would be of limited use.

Cheers,

R.

Yep, from what I know duration issues limit most flash syncs to around 1/1000 on the useful end of things. If I recall, nikon's speedlites offered > 1/1000 sync by reducing output and increasing duration...but having a few extra stops of shutter speed would be useful for outdoor applications where I want to underexpose the surroundings a bit. I do that now with ND filters, but a software based solution would be an awesome alternative.