Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Input Devices Technology

MIT's New Camera Can Take 1 Trillion Frames Per Second 197

Posted by timothy
from the need-a-really-big-sd-card dept.
First time accepted submitter probain writes "MIT has made a camera that can take trillion frames per second! With this high speed capability, they can actually see the movement of photons of light across a scene or object. This is just mind-boggling." ExtremeTech has a nice video of the system, too. What would you like to see slowed down to such a degree?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT's New Camera Can Take 1 Trillion Frames Per Second

Comments Filter:
  • What (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @09:52AM (#38354398)

    they can actually see the movement of photons of light across a scene or object

    ...no.

    • Re:What (Score:4, Interesting)

      by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:04AM (#38354540) Homepage Journal

      Well they can, just not individual photons or individual photon events.
      It's exactly the same as an oscilloscope -- you also don't see the shape of an individual pulse. You under-sample, and then add the samples together assuming it was always the same pulse.

      • Re:What (Score:5, Interesting)

        by vlm (69642) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:12AM (#38354614)

        Well they can, just not individual photons or individual photon events.
        It's exactly the same as an oscilloscope -- you also don't see the shape of an individual pulse. You under-sample, and then add the samples together assuming it was always the same pulse.

        Only with digital scopes. With analog that's exactly how it works, you can, if you want, see literally one pulse. Not much analog scopes on professional desktops anymore... they're all on hardware hackers basement desks now, like mine. Thats why I bring it up, on average across /. readership there are probably more analog scope users than digital scope users. That would make an interesting /. poll,
        1) I use an analog scope
        2) I use a digital scope
        3) Cowboy Neal is a my scope
        4) Whats an oscilloscope?

        • I want to use this thing to finally catch that blowhard McNulty [youtube.com] in action!!

        • Well they can, just not individual photons or individual photon events. It's exactly the same as an oscilloscope -- you also don't see the shape of an individual pulse. You under-sample, and then add the samples together assuming it was always the same pulse.

          That would make an interesting /. poll, 1) I use an analog scope 2) I use a digital scope 3) Cowboy Neal is a my scope 4) Whats an oscilloscope?

          3) CowboyNeal is out of scope

        • by freeze128 (544774)
          What's a Cowboy Neal?
      • Re:What (Score:5, Informative)

        by GrpA (691294) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:14AM (#38354630)

        No... The OP is correct.

        This isn't new technology. It's called "Gated Image Intensifier Photography" and is used for everything from Lidar to special night vision devices that can see underwater. It is one of the few technologies that allows detection of stealth submarines by taking images of the submarine without the backscatter caused by water in front of it. It's one of the only technologies that can track supercavitating weapons underwater. It can also help see through many obscurants.

        It's like a flashlight, except you only look at light reflected at a particular time after the flash ( usually a laser ) goes off. As a result, you can choose to see light that is only reflected from, say, 100m away to 101m away. Everything else looks dark and because of this, it's a good technology for seeing through trees and the likes.

        If you want to understand gating of image tubes and streak tubes in particular ( what they use - an electronically steerable image intensifier that can track very high speed objects such as bullets being fired from a gun ) just look up Image Tubes by Illes P Csorba. A great book.

        What they are doing here is just gating the image a little faster and repeating it often to capture very short duration repetative events in high detail. Not a new technology, just a variation on existing tech.

        And you'll find many modern Gen3 NV devices are autogated, meaning they do this automatically, though it's more a way to pulse-width modulate the light coming in so that they can work under brighter conditions, such as when soldiers burst into a room and the enemy turns on the lights inside...

        GrpA

        • by vlm (69642)

          thats pretty interesting. Is a possible countermeasure against this, parking your tank behind two nearly perpendicular mirrors so the beam path between the two mirrors is like 100 miles?

          Or would parking your tank behind a mirror make the terrain behind the tank look just like the terrain in front of the tank, but backwards... that might be too easy to detect after all...

          • Re:What (Score:5, Funny)

            by GrpA (691294) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @11:06AM (#38355246)

            Yes, since it's "Active" illumination, you just detect from which direction the flash of light is coming from - though you need a very wideband detector since it could be anywhere on the spectrum and will almost certainly be infrared above 1000nm...

            Then once you see the person aiming their "LIDAR" at you, you swivel the tank's gun and send some high-velocity non-photonic matter their way... Probably the most effective countermeasure.

            Most of this technology uses very long wavelength ( around 1500nm ) light so that it's not going to be obvious what you're doing. It also tends to work over very long distances, eg, 10Km away... :) It's more used for detection and identification of enemy equipment at long range under conditions of darkness.

            Even then I don't think it's all that common. Thermal is more practical for detection now and I imagine Lidar is special use only ( eg, when very high resolution images are required, when topological information is important or for underwater use ) -

            GrpA

            • Re:What (Score:4, Interesting)

              by vlm (69642) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:02PM (#38355944)

              Then once you see the person aiming their "LIDAR" at you, you swivel the tank's gun and send some high-velocity non-photonic matter their way... Probably the most effective countermeasure.

              I detect an economic problem when the cost of a dumb "transmit only" laser diode and microcontroller to pulse it costs less than cannon round. A tactical problem if you build a "tank detector" fortification using a dazzler in a safe area (nothing important downrange of it) and an anti-tank team preposition along a flank of the dazzler's LOS, the big boom from the tank wakes up the sleeping opfor anti-tank team who promptly make an even bigger boom outta the tank... Also a tactical problem if your tank only carries 40 odd rounds and the opfor issues a clip on dazzler decoy device to a couple hundred infantry escorting like two real live opfor tanks, hmm which do I pop odds are only 1 in 100. I suppose you pop the two big thermal plumes, but still the freak out factor must count for something, maybe combined with other surprises...

              20 yrs ago I worked on the logistical computer systems for ammo in the USAR so I know those shells are quite expensive, and I do stuff with cheap microcontrollers and some laser diode stuff now, so I know I can build a decoy for maybe 1/10 the cost of a shell.

            • by kimvette (919543)

              Gated cameras have been out for a while - initially they were classified as munitions (they still may be, I'm not sure). ExtremeCCTV (Now part of Bosch) had a full line of such cameras, and the huge advantage of this tech is it enabled surveillance through even dense fog and blizzard/whiteout conditions. I can't find the tech on Bosch's site now but I found these:

              http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol1604_8.htm [usborderpatrol.com] (just an article about the practical application)
              http://www.laseroptronix.se/gated/aqly.h [laseroptronix.se]

        • Re:What (Score:5, Insightful)

          by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @11:59AM (#38355916)

          Not a new technology, just a variation on existing tech.

          I have never seen a new technology appear that was not met with that reaction on slashdot. I think people have some serious misconceptions about what science looks like when you follow it on a daily or weekly basis. Step functions exist only in theory.

          • by Surt (22457)

            Bah, and today is the first time in seemingly months that I have no mod points for such a worthy post.

          • by wagnerrp (1305589)
            Active gated cameras aren't a new technology, they're just a variation on Fizeau's original apparatus for measuring the speed of light. This is nothing more than 1850's tech. Friggen steampunk imagers...
          • by EdIII (1114411)

            To put it another way, it's like saying the BBQ is just a variation on a campfire and not really all that impressive. Well... that's a pretty interesting variation with many practical applications.

            Variations, if they allow new functions and capabilities, does not invalidate it's worth simply because it re-purposes existing tech.

        • by Phrogman (80473)

          So lets hear it for the GIIPer !
          Couldn't resist :P

        • by wagnerrp (1305589)

          It's one of the only technologies that can track supercavitating weapons underwater.

          The other being bog standard passive sonar? Cavitation makes noise. The bubbles collapse violently with a loud pop, making a ton of noise, which is why submarines try so hard not to do so. Supercavitation makes a fuckton of noise. The idea is that you're just going so damn fast, no one can do anything about it. Most supercavitating concepts run 50-150m/s, while the speed of sound in water is 1500m/s. That's plenty far out in advance to track it acoustically just fine.

    • Re:What (Score:4, Interesting)

      by vlm (69642) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:09AM (#38354588)

      they can actually see the movement of photons of light across a scene or object

      ...no.

      Sure you can. I've seen the nuke test footage. I'm not talking about the stereotypical "wind gust front" but actual "light" output. The first few frames are classified and I have not seen them, because they show asymmetries that imply various things about internal construction, but once the fireball gets a couple feet across its pretty much perfectly spherical and that's the unclassified frames I've seen. If there were a useful way to search youtube / google / archive.org for a description like this, I'd give you a link to the actual movie. You can distinctly see the disk of light hit the ground and expand very rapidly circularly underneath the slowly growing fireball, well, slowly growing compared to the speed of light, anyway. There are not many frames to this "movie" probably synchronization of the cameras and the "bang" was harder back in the 50s. The footage is many decades old.

      I believe the relevant part of the story is this might be the first "trillion fps" camera that isn't classified and is owned by "civilians"

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I believe the relevant part of the story is this might be the first "trillion fps" camera that isn't classified and is owned by "civilians"

        Streak cameras with picosecond resolution or below have been available off the shelf for decades. They were really expensive and are still pricey now, even if a lot cheaper. So not within the reach of most hobbyists, although still available to civilians with money or some salvaging luck.

        I am not sure about being able to see an advancing light front off of nuclear te

      • by The Raven (30575)

        This was not a single camera; what you're seeing is the images from 10 closely spaced cameras that were triggered at slightly different times. We could take very quick images in the 50's... we couldn't take a video. Video capture is new.

        • by jdastrup (1075795)
          TFA says they are using 500 cameras (CCD's) to accomplish this task. And isn't video simply many still frames put together? So what's the difference?
      • by Surt (22457)

        His point is that what you are capturing is different photons involved in a wave. As soon as you capture any given photon, it's no longer a participant in the wave, so you can't capture the movement of even one photon, much less multiple photons. What you do capture is some photons characteristic of those moving across a scene.

        But really, he's just being a pedant troll.

      • Re:What (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:32PM (#38356392) Journal

        What you are seeing is probably a sphere of expanding plasma. It can't possibly be a "sphere of light" because light travels at the speed of light. By the time you could see the sphere, you would be inside it.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        no, you can't. The poster is talking about packets of photons.

        What you are describing is different. And it an't a trillion frames a second.
        .

    • A succinct answer and basically correct.

      My understanding of this is the clever part is the very short pulsed laser combined with a very short exposure camera. Each laser pulse send lots of photons together in a bunch across the field of view of the camera. Some clever camera synchronisation allows each "frame" taken by the camera to be slightly (pico seconds) later than the previous one. When run as a movie, this appears to show a light pulse as moves across the field of view.

      However, it doesn't take a pic

    • by Dachannien (617929) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:29AM (#38354774)

      Morbo: Photons do not work that way! Good night!

      Seriously. You can't detect a photon unless it actually collides with the detector. So how do you detect movement of photons across a scene?

      • So how do you detect movement of photons across a scene?

        Well, you assume the photons expand out radially from the source, and therefore, watching the light propagate from left to right across your field of vision, you assume that the photos that hit your detector (such as your eyes), are roughly coplanar with the (majority of) photons that aren't hitting your detector.

        You know, like what happens when you look at the beam coming out of a flashlight from the side.

        (Remember: to make inferences, you must make assumptions. Your visual system makes inferences.)

        It's j

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You can't watch light propagate across your field of vision. What you see from a flashlight is _scattered_ light coming from a beam propagating across your field of vision. Any thing that you sense by vision, or that in instrument detects through photon interactions, is the result of photons hitting your eye or the instrument respectively; that implies that those photons are _not_ traveling across the field of vision.

          Related is the quantum measurement problem--anything you do to that photon is likely to per

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        So? Photons start striking an object. There's a "front" moving across that object as the photons hit it, assuming it wasn't perpendicular to the emitter.

        There's no reason you shouldn't be able to see this... as you would see those photons moving across that front that reflected back towards the sensing device (camera)

      • by Surt (22457)

        The plural does work that way, though, and the plural form was used, so technically it was correct.

      • by Hentes (2461350)

        Yeah, light would have been a better word.

  • Wish to see? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unixcrab (1080985) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @09:53AM (#38354408)
    1. The electron beam scanning in a CRT. 2. Inside a cylinder of an internal combustion engine. 3. A lightning strike (too difficult maybe)
  • I really, really doubt they can see a photon...

    • At least now without altering the results.
      • by GrpA (691294)

        Nope, they can actually visualise a single photon if the gain is sufficient, eg, Super Inverter Image Intensifier ( also known as Gen3+1 ) - Typical photonic gain levels of around 300,000x -

        Neat huh?

        Of course, that's assuming the photon is converted into a photoelectron by the photocathode, which depends on the QE ( Quantum Efficiency ) of the photocathode material.. And assuming the photon isn't lost in any AlO films inside the device... Then yes, they can actually see individual photons.

        They can count ph

        • by X0563511 (793323)

          Of course, that's assuming the photon is converted into a photoelectron by the photocathode

          ... which in turn alters the object/system under observation?

    • by vlm (69642)

      I really, really doubt they can see a photon...

      If not photons, what are you using to see? The "photons moving across the scene" doesn't mean you see one moving from A to B, it means you see one presumably came from A because it was a pitch black room, hits B, bounces off and hits yer eye or camera. There is some geometrical / trig foolishness to correct the actual speed, but to the simplest approximation if you suddenly turn on a light at A, the position of B moves away around the speed of light. (Bonus points for calculating how fast imaginary const

    • I really, really doubt they can see a photon from the side

      FTFY (because all anything that sees can see is photons)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @09:54AM (#38354426)

    played back at 24fps, it would take over 1,000 years to watch 1 second of video captured at 1,000,000,000,000fps.

    • If my math is right, light travels a little over 1/100th of an inch (or a little under 0.3 mm) per frame.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The problem is that photons ARE light, and the camera CONSUMES them by seeing them.

        You can never see the same photon twice. The act of seeing absorbs it.

        • Right, dude. Just how when you smell something, you consume molecules from it through your nose.

          Therefore, you never smell the same molecule twice.

          Therefore, you destroy every rose you smell.

          Er ... yeah, maybe we need to not get ahead of ourselves.

    • Granted however if you run algorithms that will correctly motion blur each image. you will be able to view things at mostly any speed you want and not have it seem choppy.

      I am happy to see technology getting to a point where improvements in some areas have become impractical as they are surpassing our ability to observe them.
      Just like how the Now High resolution displays are getting to a point we no longer need to get any higher (We need to get a bit higher so we cannot see a pixel attached to a display on
    • by GrpA (691294) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:19AM (#38354674)

      They are talking about shutter rates, not image capture rates... Big difference.

      It probably has quite a slow frame rate.

      GrpA

    • by Surt (22457)

      But only a lifetime to watch at 240, which would be better for a smooth viewing experience.

  • by SJHillman (1966756) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @09:55AM (#38354438)

    I love the whooshing sound deadlines make as they fly by, maybe this will slow them down enough to see what they look like too!

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by DWMorse (1816016) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @09:56AM (#38354448) Homepage

    What would you like to see slowed down to such a degree?

    Hint: It involves a trampoline, or maybe a wet tshirt...

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by mbone (558574) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:30AM (#38354788)

      You realize that at a picosecond frame rate it would take about a year of watching at 30 frames per second to actually see any motion of a person on a trampoline at all, and maybe a century to observe an single bounce ?

      • by Surt (22457)

        But if you want a smooth playback you should watch at 240 hz. So that would only take you most of your adult life to observe a single bounce.

      • But what a way to spend a century!

  • I watched the video and can only conclude that it doesn't make any sense at all. Slow motion video of a moving photon? Give me a break.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You don't get it. What you see are the photons deflected by the air off of their original path. When the light is in the middle of the bottle it has actually already exited it. The cameras capture the deflected photons. In a perfect vacuum you would not be able to see anything.

    • Exactly. How do you see a photon?

      • by root_42 (103434)

        The FAQ on Rashkar's website (http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/) gives a good explanation. The whole thing is a repeated measurement process, with accurately timed recordings of the detector. The explanations and PR are (sadly) typical for SIGGRAPH papers nowadays. It's a bit of bullshit, you never "see" a photon flying through the scene. For this to happen, another photon would have to interact (reflect) off of this moving photon and be recorded by your camera.

        Still, this method is quite intere

      • by GrpA (691294) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:25AM (#38354734)

        Well I could just say "With your eyes" but I figure the question is "How do you see a single photon?"

        You amplify it by converting it to a photoelectron with a very sensitive photocathode, then you add more electrons through either linear acceleration and multiple electron/photon stages or with a MicroChannel Plate ( MCP ) which causes secondary electrons to multiply the number of electrons, then you accelerate it over a short distance to around 5,000 to 10,000 eV and then smack it into a aluminized phosphor screen, which converts the electrons back to photons, but a HEAP of them so they are visible.

        They can also focus and steer the electrons inside the tube. That's why it's called a "streak tube"... :)

        I have seen photons many times. Kind of cool seeing a picture made from just a few photons, but it has to be REALLY dark to do this and you have to get your own eyes accustomed to the dark as well. The pictures sometimes just look like static until you collect a whole heap of them in a timed exposure.

        When you amplify light about 100,000 times and then take a 15 second exposure and it *still* looks dark, you know the original image was exceptionally dark.

        GrpA

      • by vlm (69642)

        Exactly. How do you see a photon?

        If its high enough energy / high enough freq / low enough wavelength we call it a gamma particle and you watch ionized air particles it left behind as it passes thru.

        Thats kinda abstract because we're not looking at "it" but more what it did to the air as it wooshed by.

        Maybe a closer example would be cerenkov radiation, essentially a visual sonic boom as one goes thru something with a lower speed of light (some plastics have a really low speed of light, which makes them pretty good lens material). I guess

    • by swalve (1980968) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:21AM (#38354694)
      It sounds like they aren't actually capturing 1T fps in real time. They are simulating it by capturing identical scenes at very slightly different intervals. Sort of a wagon wheel effect, or that effect that made the rounds a couple of months ago where they "captured" the movement of guitar strings. Take a machine gun that fires bullets once per second. Take a camera that takes photographs every 1.000000001 seconds. Fire a trillion bullets and take a trillion photographs. Each photograph will show a different bullet, one trillionth of a second further along the path. If you play them back, it looks like a single bullet going really slow.
      • by dmatos (232892)

        In order to resolve spatial location of the light pulse, at the very least they need to have a sensor with a response time on the order of 1ps. Being able to control the exposure time accurately with ps resolution is also a pretty incredible feat.

        They have definitely admitted that they're not capturing the entire 2-d image at 1T fps. They might be capturing a 500-pix line at 1THz line rate, but that's unclear in the article and the video.

        • by dmatos (232892) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:42AM (#38354926)

          Ah. Further reading at the MIT site indicates that they are reading at "1THz line rate". They use a varying electric field inside the camera slit to deflect the photons by different amounts onto a 2-D image sensor. Thus, on the sensor, the x-direction contains spatial information, and the y-direction contains temporal information.

          They can do this by sweeping the strength of the electric field inside the streak camera's slit quickly. Photons arriving at different times are deflected by different amounts, and thus hit different pixels in the 2-D sensor behind the slit.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:02AM (#38354516)

    Each movie that camera makes is dubbed with the sound of Steve Austin running [youtube.com] for dramatic effect.

  • I'm sure somebody is going to shrink it so it can fit in my phone.

  • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:04AM (#38354544) Journal

    This grew out of a system to see around corners. The professor wanted to build a camera that could analyze the path of reflected light to get pictures around ninety degree angles. This is a really amazing concept, moreso than simply getting a camera to take ever increasingly fast pictures.

    if you are interested in learning more and have a lecture's worth of time on your hand, please check one out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKu20y1f_RU [youtube.com]

    • by swalve (1980968)
      What IS really cool about this is that they have visualized light echos.
    • by RandCraw (1047302)

      More info here:
      http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar//trillionfps/ [mit.edu]

      The work is based on 'streak camera' technology, which measures the change in the flow of a stream of photons. Raskar is extending the work from 1D to 2D and adding multi-point reflectance data to infer the 3D shape of objects that are otherwise occluded from view.

      Clearly the image's spatial resolution will be limited by the smoothness of the reflected surface, the rate of motion of the target, additional noise source

  • Streak cameras (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:08AM (#38354584)

    Streak cameras have been around for decades. They take a one dimensional source of light, and sweep it across a 2D detector very quickly so that the second dimension gives you the time resolution much shorter than the exposure time used by the sensor. Streak cameras with time resolution in picoseconds is pretty common, and many have sub-picosecond resolution. The problem is that once the a light source is swept across the camera, you are limited by the time it takes to read and reset the sensor before you can repeat the process, giving you the same repetition rate as high speed 2D cameras. So you might have 100 fs time resolution, but it would be one dimensional, and only last for 100 ps, before having to wait a few microseconds to milliseconds to take another image (there are some tricks to get two images given one sensor before reading it, and some high end cameras will just have multiple sensors in parallel to get faster successive images).

    The novelty here seems not to be the camera, but the use of a laser for illumination and the stitching of many 1D images taken over an hour or so together into one 2D image.

  • Any time there is any advancement in the field of slow motion video capture, the only answer is Baywatch.

  • The current camera only does one line of a frame at a time and uses repeated laser pulses to synthesize a movie, but suppose that they upgrade this camera so that it can take a full frame in a picosecond (it's only engineering !). There is not much besides light (or a beam of high energy particles) that actually changes much in a picosecond - or even in a nanosecond (~ 1000 frames, or 30 seconds at 30 fps).

    In 1 picosecond the ISS moves about 80 angstroms, or ~8 micro meters in 1 nanosecond. A bullet is co

  • But you can bet the Mythbusters are going to want one. You know, for science.

  • Time to watch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mbone (558574) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @10:43AM (#38354932)

    Times, at 30 fps, to watch

    - a lightning strike move 1 meter : ~ 1 week
    - one bullet streak by Neo's head : ~ 100 days
    - one boob bounce on Baywatch : ~ 1 century

    Better bring lots of popcorn.

  • The real use-case for the camera is not to watch at coke bottles at super slo-mo, but to investigate how molecules absorb light of different wave-lengths. There is a real scientific need for this camera. And of course, as mentioned earlier, it can't trace individual photons.

    ps: needless to say that I did like my own summary [slashdot.org] much better (for being informative), but that may just be me.

  • "What would you like to see slowed down to such a degree?"

    My 5 year old. I might be able to keep up with him that way ...
  • - Match light at uber slow speed.
    - Bullet impact
    - The internals of a cell working
    - A plant photosynthesizing

  • Here is my take of what is going on.

    They want to take a movie on how a light travels through a scene. Just like watching waves in a wave tank.

    Here is how they do it.
    The fire a laser pulse into a scene.
    Then after a certain amount of time in the picoseconds they record the image with a line sensor.
    This only records one horizontal line of information
    Repeat with a slightly longer delay.
    Continue until the light is no longer in the scene.
    Rotate a mirror in order to record the next horizontal line in the scene and

  • What would you like to see slowed down to such a degree?

    Bay Watch running sequences.

  • What would you like to see slowed down to such a degree?

    My maths lectures.

    • by mbone (558574)

      XKCD has a cartoon [xkcd.com] for this.

      "If you think
      the minutes in
      your morning lecture
      are taking a long time
      to pass for YOU..."

  • Congress and the Oh, bummer administration.
  • by anonymov (1768712)

    Computer graphics researchers would surely be excited to see some shots of Cornell box [wikipedia.org] with this thing.

  • > What would you like to see slowed down to such a degree?

    Sofía Vergara, jumping rope, in the nude.

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...