Frank, no, there are processes that are done on a faster time scale. There are attosecond lasers , that are capable producing ~80 attosecond pulses. (1 attosecond is 10^-18 s - 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 s) As of 2010, the shortest time interval measured is 12 attoseconds. This is at least 1000-10000 times faster than the scale of the MIT's camera.
But what is interesting, is that essentially this group does an analog of the "HDR", but in the times space: they repeat the same images of a nanosecond process over a span of an hour or so, - to get 3D picture of the process. You can read about that here (general audience level): http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/trillion-fps-camera-1213.html For more technically inclined, - you can see the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKu20y1f_RU Mark, thanks for posting it. Cheers, Igor Tue Dec 13 23:56:20 EST 2011 knarftheriault at gmail.com wrote: > 'Cause any more would just be extravagant. (and probably theoretically > impossible - I'm thinking that time can't be divided into smaller > increments) > > cheers, > frank > > --- Original Message --- > > From: Mark Roberts <mark at robertstech.com> > Sent: December 13, 2011 12/13/11 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml at pdml.net> > Subject: How many fps is enough? > > Would one TRILLION frames per second be sufficient? > http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57342136-76/shutter-speed-demon-camera-takes-trillion-frames-per-second/ > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
