TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later[^][v]#265,515
Not impressed at all, sorry.
It takes 1D pictures... so nothing that isn't repeatable (like this laser pulsing into a bottle) can be captured with this cam beyond the image turning out to be:
_____________________
That's right, nothing but a fucking line... cool thinking using a shitload of sensors triggered with a tiny offcet to achieve this, but the end result it just whack.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#265,525
@previous (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
it's still kinda cool
it's not meant for taking cool to look at pictures its for SCIENCE!
they mention things like medical imaging and creating crazy-real lighting effects to bake into a computer rendered scene
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#265,530
@265,515 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
That's why they rotate the mirror
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#265,531
@265,515 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
Also it's not even about that.
> The image produced by the camera is thus two-dimensional, but only one of the dimensions — the one corresponding to the direction of the slit — is spatial. The other dimension, corresponding to the degree of deflection, is time. The image thus represents the time of arrival of photons passing through a one-dimensional slice of space.
> The camera was intended for use in experiments where light passes through or is emitted by a chemical sample. Since chemists are chiefly interested in the wavelengths of light that a sample absorbs, or in how the intensity of the emitted light changes over time, the fact that the camera registers only one spatial dimension is irrelevant.
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,542
@previous (D)
Idiot first says "we can watch a photon traveling through space like you watch a bullet..." bla bla...
That ain't even close to the truth... since to see it you have to absorb it, the best they could possibly do is let's say, fire up a laser beam through fog and watch it speed by... but stating they can watch individual light particles traveling through space, lol no...
And than the consumer photography comments, fuck it even industrial/medical use is beyond useless if it stays 1D as it is now...
Imagine trying to scan a living organism, slit by slit... things move, the heart beats... and then you compose a picture of slices taken of an object in different positions/poses... please...
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,544
@previous (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
I see you like... dramatic pauses...
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,547
@previous (E)
Run out of arguments so move on to discuss my writing style... I'm fine with this.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,548
@265,542 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
It took them an hour to do a bottle manually. Once it's automated (which should be entirely possible) that should be a lot faster so it might become something similar as MRI machines are for medical applications.
I agree that it most likely won't be for consumers though
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,549
@265,547 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
I'm not even taking part in the argument... your writing style is just... unusual...
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,552
@265,548 (D)
But you do realize, when one says "we can watch light particles travel through space" it's really hard to take anything else he says serious...
They can observe what happens when light travels through space and how it interacts with stuff, cause as I said, to see the light particle, you have to absorb it... it does not emit anything, it is what enables you too see stuff, by reflecting off of stuff and getting into your eye...
And look at the light traveling through the bottle, they cba even to make that look decent... it's still sliced up as fuck, the resolution is just shit...
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,553
i don't think they are moving the mirrors manually... that would be ... silly
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,574
@265,542 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k) > And than the consumer photography comments, fuck it even industrial/medical use is beyond useless if it stays 1D as it is now... > than
shitlisted
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,590
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw) > 2011 > doesn't get how light particles work > he made a spelling mistake
I hope you're the only one doing this.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,592
@265,552 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
You're just a negative asshole. I used to think you were alright.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,596
@265,590 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
they have a picture of the light
you are correct that the photons had to hit their sensors which they did in fact do since they have a picture of them
they even explicitly said they are reflecting the light into their sensors
whats the problem?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,598
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,602
@265,592 (G)
I didn't change a tiny bit. I just say what I think.
I'm sorry for being hones. Even more sorry for the arrogant way I present my views, but that's just who I am.
You can't be a professor at MIT and say "sup guys, I'm watching light particles travel through space".
I get cranky around such people. I'm sure it has something to do with the way I was treated during school by teachers.
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,606
@265,596 (C)
The problem is when he says he's watching particles travel through space.
Once you've seen it, it ain't going anywhere. It's consumed by your eye/cam.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,607
@265,602 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k) > You can't be a professor at MIT and say "sup guys, I'm watching light particles travel through space".
but that's exactly what they are doing
lol actually they are watching light particles travel through time and space
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,613
@previous (C)
a video of a bullet isn't watching a bullet travel through space then it's a video of reflected light
i think the analogy holds up
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,671
So the bullet analogy. To see it, light bounces off of the bullet into your eye. And that's why you see it.
Now imagine a light particle traveling through space and time... too see that one traveling, other light particles bounc off of it into your eyes/camera?
See now what they did by saying the watch light particles flying by?
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#265,679