Scientists Build World's Fastest Camera 130
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."
Re:Ok? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:And what about storage of a couple picture (Score:1, Informative)
.5 billion * 2500 bits = 145.519152 gigabytes/s .5 billion * 2500 bits = 1.13686838 terabits/s
or
Re:How does this compare? (Score:4, 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!
Re:Ok? (Score:4, 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.
Re:And what about storage of a couple picture (Score:3, 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.
Re:Ok? (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.