| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2013 02:45:11 PM · #1 |
Would be great if you could photograph this, wouldn't it?
Edit:
You are right, Robert :)
Should be: "Would be great to photograph"
Message edited by author 2013-03-28 15:13:17. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:06:36 PM · #2 |
| Incredible! And I don't know why you COULDN'T photograph it... |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:16:23 PM · #3 |
| The only reason why you can see the water formation is because the camera recording the video is set to the same frequency as the tone being pushed through it. The naked eye wouldn't see it. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:34:40 PM · #4 |
You can do it if you use stroboscopic illumination at the same frequency (or integer multiples?) that you are driving the speakers, while keeping the shutter of the camera open. Of course, assuming you don't want to use postprocessing ;).
Message edited by author 2013-03-28 15:36:16. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:52:38 PM · #5 |
That is
--- Edit: Sorry... bathroom break. ---
awesome!
Message edited by author 2013-03-28 15:54:08. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 04:17:42 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
The only reason why you can see the water formation is because the camera recording the video is set to the same frequency as the tone being pushed through it. The naked eye wouldn't see it. |
I'm trying to grasp this, what wold you see in person?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2013 04:46:05 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 05:30:19 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
The only reason why you can see the water formation is because the camera recording the video is set to the same frequency as the tone being pushed through it. The naked eye wouldn't see it. |
I'm trying to grasp this, what wold you see in person? |
Take the hose and wiggle it back and forth. That's what you'd see.
It's a similar effect to this |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 05:36:17 PM · #9 |
| AH! Now I get the significance of the "24" :-) |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 05:36:37 PM · #10 |
| OMG that was Awesome!!! Running out to attach hose to hubbys new speakers.... roflmao |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 05:50:43 PM · #11 |
See if this explanation helps any.
Camera Frame Rate |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 06:01:20 PM · #12 |
When I was a wee young lad, I made shapes very similar to that while tinkling in the bathtub.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2013 06:29:15 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
The only reason why you can see the water formation is because the camera recording the video is set to the same frequency as the tone being pushed through it. The naked eye wouldn't see it. |
I'm trying to grasp this, what wold you see in person? |
Take the hose and wiggle it back and forth. That's what you'd see.
It's a similar effect to this |
That's what I thought. So the frame rate synced with the oscilating frequency makes it look nice and clean. |
|
|
|
03/29/2013 08:27:38 AM · #14 |
So, in short: possible to photgraph but not with plain equipment.
If a likewise photocamera exists anyway...
Right? |
|
|
|
03/29/2013 08:37:07 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Incredible! And I don't know why you COULDN'T photograph it... |
my take is it would be very difficult to photograph and wouldn't look the same. you camera is only going to capture one frame whereas the video is showing all 24 frames in succession.
you could set the set the camera at 1/20 and set the frequency of the device at 20hz, but you will get motion blur as the water moves through the frame.
maybe 10 shot at 1/200 all combined in post? or maybe set a strobe to flash at the same frequency freezing each motion while the shutter was open the whole time.
Message edited by author 2013-03-29 08:39:39. |
|
|
|
03/29/2013 09:36:33 AM · #16 |
It depends of what you want to photograph, the whole reason of this trick is to "freeze" the stream of water (better example). The camera would do that naturally just by taking an image with fast enough shutter.
I think the only motivation to take a shoot of this would be to have the stream of water frozen while there is movement in the background (blurred subject?). For that you would need strobes at a matching frequency with the driving frequency of the speakers, so that every time the flash triggers the stream is in the "same" position and so it appears frozen with respect of the moving subject. Another option would be to use one flash for the stream of water and then stop the flow and expose the moving subject, or post-processing, but that's boring. In the end I don't think that it would as dramatic effect as a video where you hear the water splashing while it appears to be frozen.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2013 10:09:32 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
That is
--- Edit: Sorry... bathroom break. ---
awesome! |
hahahahahahahah!!!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 05:13:33 PM EDT.
