File :-(, x, )
Photo folks! I need your help... Anonymous
I'm doing a study on balls of oxidizing Si (aka, ball lightning) and I wanted to get high res images over a short time -- maybe 10 images at 1/2000th of a second each separated by a few milliseconds of less. Moreover, I wanted to do it cheaply! Any ideas?
I submit my pic of paris at dawn for your trouble.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTDCamera ModelEX-Z55Camera Software1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:12:31 09:22:53Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/4.3Exposure ProgramLandscape ModeExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeLandscapeGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Not gonna happen inexpensively. The Canon 1Ds MKIII can do what you're saying, as it has a burst rate of 10 frames/second if I recall correctly.

If you get everything set up and you can guarantee yourself some ball lightning (dunno if this is a lab situation you're talking about), you could rent one for a day. Expect to put down a ~$5000 deposit and pay ~$150 a day for a camera and lens.

Inexpensively, your best bet is to use any camera and just do a tripod-mounted long exposure. Realistically, that's the only kind of image you're going to be able to get. That's how people get normal lightning shots, anyways. Those exposures are usually around 1/15 of a second at their fastest, and sometimes as long as 1-5 minutes.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Oh, the Nikon D2H is pretty fast too and should be cheaper than a 1DsMkIII, but it's a high speed crop, so only like 4MP images. It was targeted at sports photographers, so it's not really optimal for your intended use.
>> ac
>>46518
Might want to consider a movie camera instead of a still camera. I don't know dum diddly do about movie cameras, though, so that's the closest I can come to giving actual advice.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>46525
haha, derr... I completely forgot other kinds of cameras exist. It's like Dr. Wilson on House. "Of course, it's CANCER!" Fucking oncologist.
>> Anonymous
ah, you have my thanks. Although I was thinking of using the fastest exposure time I could, as I wasn't going to see where the ball went over time, but rather how it ball itself rotated in a magnetic field (or if it did at all).
Cheers!