lightspeed camera.

[dstebbins]

Einstein claimed and proved that it is impossible for an object of non-zero rest mass to reach the speed of light, because it will require infinite energy to get it there.

 

Does the same apply for camera framerates? In the unknown future, could a person with sufficient technological and scientific education and a sufficient budget create a cam corder that is 299,792,458 frames per second, so that a person can actually watch a light bulb luminate a room?

[Baby Astronaut]

Even if you could make the frame-rates go that quickly, you wouldn't capture a room being lit slowly, however cool that might be. Why? The photons have to reach the camera in order to even see the light, and by then it's too late.

 

Unless a way exists to do it with rows of cameras lining the entire room, and then compile the videos so you somewhat get the effect you're looking for.

[dstebbins]

Even if you could make the frame-rates go that quickly, you wouldn't capture a room being lit slowly, however cool that might be. Why? The photons have to reach the camera in order to even see the light, and by then it's too late.

 

Unless a way exists to do it with rows of cameras lining the entire room, and then compile the videos so you somewhat get the effect you're looking for.

 

Well, what if we were to position the camera just an inch from the light source, so that it reacts with the camera relatively quickly.

 

Basically, what I'm asking is... does the "no speed of light" thing apply to framrates?

[moth]

according to quantum mechanics Planck time is the smallest unit of time so 1/Planck time would probably be your theoretical maximum frame rate(physical limitations of photodetectors and memory will keep you from getting anywhere close), but as Baby Astronaut pointed out you have to wait for the photons to bounce off something and hit the camera before you see anything.

[iNow]

The shutter has a non-zero mass, ergo it will not move at the speed of light.

[dstebbins]

according to quantum mechanics Planck time is the smallest unit of time so 1/Planck time would probably be your theoretical maximum frame rate(physical limitations of photodetectors and memory will keep you from getting anywhere close), but as Baby Astronaut pointed out you have to wait for the photons to bounce off something and hit the camera before you see anything.

 

How much is a Plank Time?

 

The shutter has a non-zero mass, ergo it will not move at the speed of light.

 

not necessarily. If the distance the shutter has to travel to open and/or close all the way is really small, such as a milimeter, then the maximum speed is still c, but it has only a milimeter to go, not a whole meter. It is entirely possible to go .001 times the speed of light.

[moth]

according to wikipedia Planck time is about 5.39124 * 10^-44 seconds so 1/Planck time is about 1.8548 * 10^43 cycles per second. 1/(3*Planck time) might be a better estimate of a maximum frame rate so you could get a couple of samples per frame.

[swansont]

The shutter has a non-zero mass, ergo it will not move at the speed of light.

 

And even an electronic shutter will not do this. You have to move information around in a camera in order to take multiple frames, and this also cannot happen faster than c. But for 3e8 fps, the speed of light is not the the issue.

 

What are you really doing with a frame rate like that? You are letting in a "meter of light," meaning your exposure time is ~3 nanoseconds. You can do this without anything moving at c. You just need an aperture smaller than a meter. If I use a 1 mm aperture, then I only need the shutter to cover 1 mm in that time, so it travels at "just" 3e5 m/s

 

As Baby Astronaut has pointed, what you observe is photons reaching the camera. If you could do this, though, what you would see is the bulb, and then parts of the room as light scatters off of surfaces. You would see it "light up," a meter of light travel at a time, if you could run the shutter at 3e8 fps.