Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Build World's Fastest Camera

Hugh Pickens writes "Researchers have developed a camera that snaps images less than a half a billionth of a second long and can capture over six million images in a second continuously. Dubbed Serial Time-Encoded Amplified imaging, or Steam, the technique depends on carefully manipulating so-called 'supercontinuum' laser pulses. While other cameras used in scientific research can capture shorter-lived images, they can only capture about eight images, and have to be triggered to do so for a given event. The Steam camera, by contrast, can capture images continuously, making it ideal for random events that cannot be triggered. Keisuke Gode, lead author of the study, and his colleagues used their camera to image minute spheres flowing along a thin tube of water in a microfluidic device." (More below.) High Pickens continues: "Using the STEAM camera they were able to image the spheres at a frame rate of 6.1 megahertz — in other words, the camera took a picture once every 163 nanoseconds. The camera could be used for studies of combustion, laser cutting and any system that changes quickly and unpredictably. One important application would be analyzing flowing blood samples. Because the imaging of individual cells in a volume of blood is impossible for current cameras, a small random sample is taken and those few cells are imaged manually with a microscope. 'But, what if you needed to detect the presence of very rare cells that, although few in number, signify early stages of a disease?,' asks Gode, citing circulating tumor cells as a perfect example of such a target. The team is working to extend the technique to 3-D imaging with the same time resolution, and to increase the effective number of pixels in a given image from 2,500 to 100,000."

130 comments

  1. Ok? by arizwebfoot · · Score: 0, Troll

    So what moves at 6 million images a second that you would need a camera that can take 6 million images a second?

    Perhaps I missed something here.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Ok? by jt418-93 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      particle events. super hardon collider type things.
      and simple things, like water drops forming, ice forming. the more detail you record, the more you learn exists.

      --
      -.no
    2. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      particle events. super hardon collider type things.

      Is that some new porno I'm too old to understand?

    3. Re:Ok? by batquux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what kind of storage do you need for a study that takes days or weeks?

    4. Re:Ok? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever seen an FPS player?

      "More.... i need MOOOORE!"

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:Ok? by owlnation · · Score: 1

      So what moves at 6 million images a second that you would need a camera that can take 6 million images a second?

      Premature ejaculation porn? A whole new untapped market?

    6. Re:Ok? by jlmale0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Super hardon collider? Dude, if you're doing it that fast; stop. Just stop. It's really meant to be enjoyed.

    7. Re:Ok? by osoroco · · Score: 5, Informative

      well, 1 second of footage = 6,000,000 frames / 30 fps = 200000 seconds
      that would mean a 55 hour movie of a lightning strike
      it would also mean a sports replay that would last well into next year

    8. Re:Ok? by sp3cialk79 · · Score: 1

      Well you missed it because you weren't fast enough to catch it....thats why you need this camera.

    9. Re:Ok? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      From TFS:

      "The camera could be used for studies of combustion, laser cutting and any system that changes quickly and unpredictably"

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Ok? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Porn. This camera will find its greatest utility in porn.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    11. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Couldn't you just throw away all the pictures that look exactly the same somewhere between the camera and the storage device?

    12. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You missed the fact that you're a fucking moron. What the FUCK are you doing on /. if you aren't impressed by useless cool gadgets and cant see what the uses of the useful cool gadgets are?

    13. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed, 24 FPS should be enough for anyone.

    14. Re:Ok? by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it would also mean a sports replay that would last well into next year

      Well, finally, a technical justification for how long sideline "instant" replay reviews seem to take.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    15. Re:Ok? by billius · · Score: 1

      There's gotta be a sexting joke in there somewhere...

    16. Re:Ok? by Herr_Skymarshall · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I missed something here.

      That's the point.

    17. Re:Ok? by TinFoilMan · · Score: 1

      So when someone asks at least a half way intelligent question, they get modded troll?

      Mod the parent up.

      --
      In my other life, I eat cats.
    18. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, quite a bunch of frames could be redundant data, just create a format that allows you to specify that a frame repeats for X and you could probably cut massive chunks out of most recordings.

      Good times.

    19. Re:Ok? by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      At 2500 pixels (50x50 image) it'll be retro-porn, like the 80's lo-res b/w stuff that you could download on a 2400 baud modem.

    20. Re:Ok? by escay · · Score: 2, Funny

      Steam? sounds like vaporware to me.

    21. Re:Ok? by HiggsBison · · Score: 1, Funny

      >> particle events. super hardon collider type things.

      > Is that some new porno I'm too old to understand?

      I thought it was a major upgrade of Ubuntu Hairy Hardon (8.04). Maybe I got that wrong.

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    22. Re:Ok? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Great, so now you have six million images per second of... something. How in the world would you actually analyze that much data?

    23. Re:Ok? by Animaether · · Score: 5, Interesting

      or, put differently, if the thing were light sensitive enough (which they never are, you have to bombard the scene with photons which typically causes heat issues, but that's another topic)...

      6,000,000 frames per second means that each frame takes 1/6,000,000th of a second.

      I know, dur, right? Here comes the awesome bit.
      The speed of light is 299,792,458 meter per second.
      divide one by the other (or multiply if you take the fraction): 299792458 meters per second / 6000000 frames per second = 49.9654097 meters per frame.

      In other words, if you'd turn on the light at one end of a 400 meter street and start recording near that light source at that very moment, you could actually see light expand from the light source along the street to the other end in ~16 frames (the light has to travel back to the camera).
      It would be a real world representation of the relativistic raytracing experiments regarding travelling light here:
      http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

      Note that 6 million frames per second is not the impressive part about this camera, though. The fastest camera reportedly does 200,000,000 frames per second; but it has lower resolution, only lets you capture a few frames, etc.

    24. Re:Ok? by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 3, Informative

      an uncompressed half hour video at 60fps eats around 10~40gb depending on resolution standard, so an uncompressed half hour video at 600,000,000 fps would take around 100~400pb? times that by 48, you would get 4.8~19.2eb per day, and 33.6~134.4eb per week. nothing a SAN can't handle... now the problem is if the camera is movable. Although... they really need to consider making movies using 120fps cameras. watching IMAX in 24fps is killing my eyes.

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    25. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought about similar scenario but was stuck in the thought: "isn't photography about light? how would the picture be taken if light hasn't arrived there yet?"

      in my scenario the camera was perpendicular to the stream of light

    26. Re:Ok? by The+Hooloovoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of processing power do you need to analyze six million frames per second in real time? (Honest question, I don't know, but I'd imagine it's just as ridiculous as the storage requirement raised by GP.)

      I suppose you could analyze every nth frame, but if you're looking for events that occur on the microsecond scale, you run the risk of missing it entirely.

    27. Re:Ok? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I missed something here.

      You mean, like, "the summary"?

    28. Re:Ok? by trip11 · · Score: 1

      Eh, on the LHC at full steam, we have collisions at 40MHz. The ATLAS pixel detector, is an 80M pixel chunk (or rather ~28k chunks) of silicon. Admitedly, most of that data never makes it out of the on chip electronics, and it has to be triggered, and the pictures are VERY sparse (a few thousand pixels fireing in an event out of the 80M), but still. We can take those snapshots damn fast.

    29. Re:Ok? by RemyBR · · Score: 2, Informative

      And what kind of storage do you need for a study that takes days or weeks?

      According to the summary:

      The team is working to extend the technique to 3-D imaging with the same time resolution, and to increase the effective number of pixels in a given image from 2,500 to 100,000.

      I don't think an image with 2.5k pixels (or even 100k pixels) take that much storage.

    30. Re:Ok? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      Well, let's see. Given 2,500 pixels/image (assume 4 bytes a pixel since there would be no time to compress data at that rate), and 6,000,000 images a second.. 196 PB/hr, for one day is 4704 PB...

      Damn. GE better get moving on that holographic storage.

    31. Re:Ok? by Parallax48 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A 6-million core Beowulf cluster? ;)

    32. Re:Ok? by huckamania · · Score: 1

      The super hardon is there in case any black holes are formed...

    33. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The roadrunner?

      You can capture 6 million images per second, but you'll be charged $1/GB to download them.

    34. Re:Ok? by weirdo557 · · Score: 0

      http://largehardoncollider.com/ taking black holes to a whole new meaning

    35. Re:Ok? by Nethead · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      My first mobile phone had a rotary dial and a tube final. But it also put out 25 watts on VHF.

      http://nethead.org/imts.jpg

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    36. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd probably need less frames, as long as it's less than 400 meters away from the far end. On the up side, to do the math, all you need is trigonometry skills, as you'd need to find the distance from the camera to the point where the light would be; that distance divided by the speed of light is the extra time required for -that- light to actually end up in your camera. /anon

    37. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't be such a super hadron collider head

    38. Re:Ok? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I don't think parent should be marked troll, he didn't say anything like "this has no use," he just asked a question, apperantly honestly.

      The article specifically mentions blood cells running through a blood vessel.

      A lot of cell biologists take pictures of fluorescent molecules, where the fluorophore absorbs one wavelenght of light and spits out another lower one. Filters can be used to isolate the emitted light so all you see is that specific molecule. Some are very dim and to see them you need to use a camera with a fairly long exposure time.

      If you're trying to visualize a fluorescent protein in a blood cell as it's moving through a capilary as it's dumping its load, you might see just a blur with a CCD camera or PMT. Actually, not might, you would only see a blur. This fast camera might be sensitive and fast enough to take good pictures of that.

      So that's one use I could imagine for the low exposure time. You wouldn't need the 6 million for that though.

    39. Re:Ok? by PPH · · Score: 1

      That must be for compliance with Rule 34.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    40. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was half way intelligent about the question?

    41. Re:Ok? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could just look at a few interesting pixels and decide which images to keep based on those few pixels changing?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    42. Re:Ok? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or, put differently, if the thing were light sensitive enough (which they never are, you have to bombard the scene with photons which typically causes heat issues, but that's another topic)...

      Light sensitivity is a big issue in some applications of fluorescent microscopy. Not heat sensitivity but photobleaching. I don't understand anything about the quantum physics involved, but the fluorophores lose their ablity to give a signal the longer they're excited, it can be rapid and it's annoying in many applications.

      I look at cells on a confocal microscope, it uses a laser of one wavelength to excite fluorescent proteins, which causes it to emit light at a different wavelength. Filters can be used to see just the emitted wavelength, so I can tell which cells have the protein and where it is within the cell. Even if I turn the laser down to %1 and take fast images, there is some minimal loss of signal. Wouldn't be a problem, except that sometimes I need to make time lapse movies for up to 20 hours. That many exposures add up quickly, and I commonly see cells go dark due to photobleaching. There are plenty of tricks availiable, but if I could take pictures faster, that would be better than some of the other compromises I have to make, like turning down the resolution or resetting the contrast.

      Quantum dots and some inorganic fluorphores I understand are more resistant to photobleaching, but they're not very good yet as far as I know for live cell imaging. For that we need to use fluorescent proteins, which are both dimmer and less photostable.

      I don't know if this technology will actually be useful or even compatible with confocal microscopy, but if it could cut down on the exposure time required, that would really help lower loss of signal and/or help with resolution issues. TFA seems to indicate they're developing this with microscopy in mind. Hopefully they'll make a microscope with it quickly, like say a month, and it will be "cheap," like under $400K. And they'll send me one free. With a pony.

    43. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50x50 pixels at 6 million frames/second printed at 72 pixels/inch = ~0.35 football fields/second to put it in a unit everyone can understand.

    44. Re:Ok? by kbrasee · · Score: 1

      Man, it's been WAYYY too long since I last saw a Beowulf cluster joke.

    45. Re:Ok? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      but if you do that what is the point of using this camera. might as well use a handicam.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    46. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now THAT would be worth building a camera for.

    47. Re:Ok? by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 1

      well, assuming you're just comparing each pixel value to the one before it, the ability to compare and then sum the differences (this can simply by 0 vs 1, and do a logical AND or OR) at a rate of 15Ghz (15 billion pixels/second).


      or compare 15-60 in parallel, and you need to do between 1Ghz and 250Mhz. This ignores time to store the previous value, etc but... this Should be doable. Especially with dedicated hardware comparing, say, 250 pixels at a time.

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    48. Re:Ok? by Bazer · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about this sensor but my prof. worked on some chips for the ATLAS detector. The chip he worked on had to be built with data filtering logic in the silicon (just behind the sensor). I don't remember the exact number but a sensor without a filter would generate something on the order of a petabyte a second (or some other ridiculously large number). I guess this sensor has something similar built-in.

    49. Re:Ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great. now all i can think about is how cool it would be to see that. Nice way to ruin my day

    50. Re:Ok? by benjaffe · · Score: 1

      Frames per second is different than shutter speed. The camera takes images at a very high shutter speed. That doesn't mean each second has 60,000,000 frames - it just means that every frame depicts a slice of time which is 1/600,000,000 seconds small.

    51. Re:Ok? by benjaffe · · Score: 1

      Apologies - I got my figures wrong. It's about 60 GB per second at 6 million fps, 8 bit pixels, 50x50.

  2. Fast enough? by SolarStorm · · Score: 5, Funny

    But is this fast enough to photograph my wife with a closed mouth?

    1. Re:Fast enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is if she finally lets go of my dick.

    2. Re:Fast enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!! Thank you, you made my day.

    3. Re:Fast enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hahah yah she does talk a lot. I find the panties in the mouth with some duct-tape shuts her the fuck up nicely till I'm done.

    4. Re:Fast enough? by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

      It only captures events that actually occur, so no it won't because it will never happen.

  3. Steam? by Luuseens · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Steam, you say? Here comes Valve, and a small lawsuit. There are just never enough lawsuits in this world!

  4. They should put it in a brass and mahogany case by serutan · · Score: 1

    ... and call it the Serial Time-Encoded Amplified imaging Engine.

  5. I can't wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just imagine how awesome the explosions on Mythbusters will look with this high speed camera!

  6. 6 seconds later ... In other news ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    ... Scientists build a camera faster than the world's fastest camera!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:6 seconds later ... In other news ... by pbhj · · Score: 1

      ... Scientists build a camera faster than the world's fastest camera!

      I always thought it was engineers that built stuff (or at least that instructed machines and peons to build stuff).

    2. Re:6 seconds later ... In other news ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      I'm just keeping on the line here, last time I checked it was engineers building bridges but now-a-days anyone can build bridges ...
      The gap inbetween engineering and science is smaller than we think; how would we build the bridge if we didn't know any scientific background on this?

      I'm truely convinced science and engineering walk hand in hand; else we wouldn't be engineering something based on parameters which we know about.

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  7. Re: what moves at 6 million images a second? by serutan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just did.

    Want to see it again?

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. What I really wonder is by locnar42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who the hell sifts through all these pictures after they are taken?

    1. Re:What I really wonder is by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Graduate students

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:What I really wonder is by sadness203 · · Score: 1

      Easy
      1) Take a bunch of poor student
      2) tell them there's a naked woman doing a strip tease somewhere in this "movie".
      3) ...
      4) Profit!

    3. Re:What I really wonder is by x78 · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine you could maybe combine them into a video and play it over a few minutes?
      Regardless it would be good if you need a high quality indavidual frame of something, I'd imagine

      --
      Don't panic
    4. Re:What I really wonder is by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, yes, if only there were a way to take a huge pile of data and sift through it for only the interesting bits...

    5. Re:What I really wonder is by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      At a total of only 2500 pixels per image, you can easily write a script to detect what you're searching. Just filter out everything that is "normal". Or scan for a set of pixels that match a criteria.

      Automate, people! Automate! That's what your computers were meant to be for!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:What I really wonder is by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's what your computers were meant to be for!

      Gee, I thought it was for porn. The rest of the stuff was just a coincidence.

    7. Re:What I really wonder is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scatman

    8. Re:What I really wonder is by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Do poor students commonly have a fetish for watching women peeling off their skin?

      Not sure what other kind of stripping a naked woman would be able to do.

  10. One caveat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...image pixel area is 1x1!

    1. Re:One caveat... by symes · · Score: 1

      So... you'll just need to buy yourself 1280x1024 steam cameras?

    2. Re:One caveat... by Wisconsingod · · Score: 1

      Read TFA!!! 2,500 pixels = 50x50px

  11. And what about storage of a couple picture by sadness203 · · Score: 1

    So, they photograph a 50x50px square half a billion time in a split second.

    But...

    How would they store it ?

    I mean... Are they going to compress on the fly a billion tiny image ?

    I didn't see anything about that in TFA.

    1. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      .5 billion * 2500 bits = 145.519152 gigabytes/s
      or .5 billion * 2500 bits = 1.13686838 terabits/s

    2. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by dhasenan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not the storage, it's the bandwidth. 50x50 is about 2k, so if you're only filming for a millisecond, storage isn't an issue -- 2GB is all. But you're not getting that onto a disk in a millisecond; you'd have a hard time getting it onto RAM.

      On the other hand, if they're changing from 8 frames to a few hundred or thousand, that should be doable, and it's a huge leap forward.

    3. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Using FireWire, of course! Because USB would suck for this. Actually, USB sucks not just for this.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

      So, they photograph a 50x50px square half a billion time in a split second. But... How would they store it ? I mean... Are they going to compress on the fly a billion tiny image ? I didn't see anything about that in TFA.

      Easy: Google!

      --
      Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
    6. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the roughly 3 other firewire users probably agree with you.

    7. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      Although its current resolution is only about 2,500 pixels

      From the commentator:

      50x50 is about 2k,

      Close!

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    8. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by sarahbau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except it's not .5 billion per second. It's basically a .5 billionth of a second shutter speed, but only 6 million frames per second. It's also 2500 pixels per frame, not 2500 bits per frame. Let's just say it's 8 bits per pixel.

      6,000,000 x 2500 x 8 = 120 gigabits per second, or 15 gigabytes per second.

    9. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by sadness203 · · Score: 1

      Well, I really doubt the 2k for 2500 pixel. Unless this is some black and white picture... with no shade of gray whatsoever.

    10. Re:And what about storage of a couple picture by benjaffe · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's one two-billionth of a second. But in any case, still a huge amount of storage needed.

  12. Lower Tech Solution by copponex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ask her to say something nice about you.

    1. Re:Lower Tech Solution by SolarStorm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your logic is flawed. You assume I get to talk. Why do you think I read /. while she talks :)

    2. Re:Lower Tech Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nada, nothing, zero, zilch, zip, none, no, nil, zippo, nowt, nope, squat, ziltch, nothin, notta, nuffin, naw...

    3. Re:Lower Tech Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or ask for a blowjob.

    4. Re:Lower Tech Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not add some kink in the bed? Try out some bondage. A gag ball, and some handcuffs, and she will be quit for a looooong (as long as longcat) time! ^^

    5. Re:Lower Tech Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burn!

  13. Finally!!!! by CyberSlammer · · Score: 1

    A camera that will actually be able to take a half-fuzzy picture of a passing bigfoot.

  14. Storage Problem by anonymousNR · · Score: 0

    Imagine how many data centers are needed to store all of the stuff once these cameras come into use.

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  15. How does this compare? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

    So, anyone care to explain how well this goes up against something like the Rapatronic cameras? Obviously you're not limited to just one shot like the rapatronic.

    1. Re:How does this compare? by MasterOfDisaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, what's the difference between a single-shot radiation hardened FILM camera built in the 1940s designed to take pictures of ENORMOUS & insanely bright things (Nuclear explosions) and a 'camera' that records interference patterns in light to film CELLS at 6 million frames per second?

      Gee, I dunno, they sound pretty similar to me.

      This new one only has an imaging area of 50x50 pixels - the film in the Rapatronic can surely beat that!

      --
      The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
    2. Re:How does this compare? by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      Try running film through a camera at 6 million frames per second. The physical mechanism is the bottleneck.

  16. SanDisk by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    SanDisk is now salivating at the prospect of a 2TB memory card, or two or three, as a MUST HAVE accessory for your next DSLR.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:SanDisk by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah. At 2500 pixels (not mega! not even kilo!), you only get 6100000*2500*3 = 45.75 GB/min, or (*60) 2.745 TB per minute. ^^

      Want a full two-hour movie? Well, then you only need 329.4 TB of space
      What you say? Full-HD you want? Then 273.21754 petabytes you must have! All your bytes are belong to us!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  17. I guess... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

    ...I'll be needing new video card, then.

  18. Time Warner by frozentier · · Score: 0, Troll

    They say they really developed this to record how fast Time Warner will cap your internet downloads.

  19. Cell phones by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    LOL...ok, which cell phone company will race to put this in their latest phone. Megapixel....bahhh... the new XYZ camera phone can capture 6 million pictures a second!

    1. Re:Cell phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was kinda sold on mine with 120fps video capture. The rest of it is cack, but it's fun... OK, was fun for a while.

  20. Um, guys..... by Itninja · · Score: 1

    snaps images less than a half a billionth of a second long and can capture over six million images in a second

    At that rate isn't this just high-speed digital video? Really high-speed digital video? Or is digital high-speed just a series of stills taken really fast? I'm confused....

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. in related news... by poached · · Score: 1

    coming to a microsoft mouse explorer near you!

  23. Finally!! by palmerj3 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... scientists now hope to catch Rosie O'Donnell in the act of stealing cheetos from infants.

  24. Grad Students by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

    Grad Students, the cheap-labour gophers of the Ph. D's.

  25. Time Warp by Endo13 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good candidate for their next camera.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  26. Samples Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have at least posted a selection of 1-10 seconds of images.

  27. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Wouldn't the steam fog up the lens all the time?
    2. Can I download Half Life through it?
    3. Can it run linux?

    B

  28. Multicolored laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dubbed Serial Time-Encoded Amplified imaging, or Steam, the technique depends on carefully manipulating so-called "supercontinuum" laser pulses.

    These pulses, less than a millionth of a millionth of a second long, contain an enormously broad range of colours.

    Since when does a laser contain more than one color?

    1. Re:Multicolored laser? by tenco · · Score: 1

      Since when did a laser pulse contain only one color? (hint: fourier space)

    2. Re:Multicolored laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so the limited length of the pulse causes a broader spectrum of frequencies, didn't think of that.

  29. Bullet Time with this by Turzyx · · Score: 1

    Hell yeah!

  30. Light filling a room by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this still isn't fast enough to capture light filling a room but I'd always dreamt of having such a video camera. Imagine, a recording a someone flicking a light switch and watching in slow-motion as the light bounces around the room filling each area. Aah, I can dream.

    1. Re:Light filling a room by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this still isn't fast enough to capture light filling a room but I'd always dreamt of having such a video camera. Imagine, a recording a someone flicking a light switch and watching in slow-motion as the light bounces around the room filling each area. Aah, I can dream.

      You might as well do that as an experiment in ray-tracing. In real life, you won't see any change until the light reaches the area of the room containing your camera (i.e. the area that fills with light first is where the observer is).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  31. Re:Lower Tech Solution EOTT.... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Put this into a tiger. Show it food. What will they see from the perspective of the eye of the tiger?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  32. flow cytometry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One important application would be analyzing flowing blood samples. Because the imaging of individual cells in a volume of blood is impossible for current cameras, a small random sample is taken and those few cells are imaged manually with a microscope. 'But, what if you needed to detect the presence of very rare cells that, although few in number, signify early stages of a disease?"

    Or I could just use the flow cytometer with imager unit my lab already has to do this... because this is what it was designed to do.

    "imaged manually"? this guy's insane if he thinks state of the art is to grab a cell and put it under a microscope manually.

    Now, if he's talking about imaging individual cells as they continue to circulate through a living aorta, he may be on to something.

    oh, and yes I am a grad student in modern bio.

  33. Re:Lower Tech Solution EOTT.... Would they show by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    the "footage", or, would they ... cheatah us out of that rolling stock...?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  34. STREAK cameras? by tenco · · Score: 1

    How does this compare to STREAK cameras? Certainly, you can't take pictures of objects with a STREAK camera, but they have a much shorter exposure time of about 100fs and even shorter. Now use this with a modelocked pulse laser... or are the CCDs used in STREAK cameras to slow for taking pictures continously at such rates?

  35. Re:Write speed by slashqwerty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From TFA, we are talking about 2,500 pixels per frame at 6.1 megahertz framerate. Let's guesstimate 1 byte/pixel * 2,500 pixels * 6,100,000 frames = 15,000,000,000 bytes/second = ~14 Gigabytes/second.

    If you're only looking to capture a few seconds, just put it in RAM and write it to long-term storage later. Write speeds for high-end consumer RAM are in that neighborhood. DDR3 1800 can write just over 14GB/s. For a research project, 128 GB of RAM is certainly feasible. That will give you a full 9 seconds of video.

    If you need more pixels you can line up arrays in parallel to capture several seconds from each array at the same time. They can all use the same clock so everything stays synchronized.

  36. Why does a camera have to be this fast? by Anthony+Scales · · Score: 1

    Why does a camera need to be this fast? Aren't they already fast enough?

    1. Re:Why does a camera have to be this fast? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Maybe for moms and dads to take pictures of their hyperactive children during family get-togethers, whereas with a normal camera, they'd just be a blur.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  37. Re:Write speed by hoytak · · Score: 1

    Apparently, their RAID goes up to 11.

    --
    Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
  38. that was not the fastest camera ... try 2 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fasted camera that is out there is from Specialized Imaging in the UK (www.specialised-imaging.com). It takes 2 billion full frames per second. NOTE: These cameras do not take many frames, maybe up to 128 or so. But they can image ultra fast events such as explosions, large scale or small scale, doesn't matter, but fast. I, myself, have a 200 million frames per second camera and it is able to record travelling light. Pretty cool stuff.

  39. Obligatory by cripeon · · Score: 1

    Bash quote:
    <Handy> Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed,
    <Handy> they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

    From: http://www.bash.org/?537155

    ... Okay, I'll go get my coat.

  40. Do you hear that? by gosand · · Score: 1

    It's the sound of Flickr sobbing.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.