The 1DX isn't even released yet and 12 fps is seeming pretty darn slow :p
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...-space-slow-mo
Printable View
The 1DX isn't even released yet and 12 fps is seeming pretty darn slow :p
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...-space-slow-mo
It's amazing how they exaggerate things for the sake of marketing. If you apply the same logic they used, then my 5D2 is capable of 8000 FPS. All you need to do is set it to an exposure of 1/8000 and shoot the same thing over and over ("you have to be filming an event that is exactly repeatable").
Ok, maybe they should have specified that it was 1 frame taken at a rate of 1 trillion FPS....:D I am sure that was in the fine print somewhere....
Actually, if I understand what they are doing correctly, the number of frames captured in a "burst" would be limited by the width of the sensor. Granted, the way they did their experiment, each "frame" would be the exact same image.....so, err...no point to it I guess....unless you want to stack the images (which they may have done).
My nephew sent me the link. Of course, the headline is catching, but the thing I wonder about is how did they have sufficient signal to have a reading above noise. Several of you on this forum understand such things better than I do, but simplistically, I can envision and incredibly bright source, but it still impresses me that enough photons could hit a "pixel/sensor" in 1 trillionth of a second to produce sufficient signal to read above the noise. Granted, read noise decreases with "shutter speed," so maybe that isn't a factor at 1 trillionth of a second.