I am playing around with my mini DV camera that I got for Christmas and discovered that it has a shutter function where I can set it as quick as 1/4,000th of a second. Was wondering if that is quick enough to be able to see a bullet in flight provided there's enough light. Far too dark outside to try it now with a pellet gun or .22 colibri ammo so I figured there might be someone here who would know.
Filming bullets in flight
- Thread starter Maser
- Start date
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Maser, the shutter speed will only determine how sharp each frame is, when you have a fast moving object. In order to video a bullet in flight, the real requirement is going to be how many frames per second your camera will take. Only a couple of frames per second? When you're talking anywhere from 1000 to over 4000 feet per second, you better have a good eye on the viewfinder 
.
The ultra high speed cameras that you see filming bullets in flight, etc., are incredibly complex and expensive machines. I don't think your average DV cameras available today are going to be able to do it.
.The ultra high speed cameras that you see filming bullets in flight, etc., are incredibly complex and expensive machines. I don't think your average DV cameras available today are going to be able to do it.
Right, if you take a bullet travelling at 1000fps and use a camera that takes 30 frames a second from the time the camera takes the first frame to the second the bullet would have travelled about 33.33 Ft. The bullet is travelling on an average of 1 ft every 1/1000th of a second so even to take a still the bullet will travel about 3" during the 1/4000th sec. exposure which will blur it. And that is if you hit the shutter when the bullet is in the cameras field of view.
What if you snap a picture of the bullet from a rearward angle?
1/4000th of a second? Eyes aren't that fast. I read somewhere that your brain can't recognize anything more than 30 images per second or something like that. And you can see bullets in flight, if you look from an angle.
At a 10 or 20 degree angle a bullet wouldn't move 3" across the picture- only a fraction of an inch.
Again, it still depends on snapping the picture while the bullet is in flight.
1/4000th of a second? Eyes aren't that fast. I read somewhere that your brain can't recognize anything more than 30 images per second or something like that. And you can see bullets in flight, if you look from an angle.
At a 10 or 20 degree angle a bullet wouldn't move 3" across the picture- only a fraction of an inch.
Again, it still depends on snapping the picture while the bullet is in flight.
For the latest see www.photron.com
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
Try "stopping" a plane's prop, before you try to capture a speeding bullet! Set that shutter @ 1/2000, and it'll stop a prop.
The question asked was will a 1/4000 of a second shutter speed be fast enough to photograph a bullet in flight.
Answer is yes, when Nikon come out with a camera with a 1/4000 sec top shutter speed they had as part of an ad program a picture of a bullet in flight as a full page ad in a photo mag. IIRC the bullet was slightly blurred. This was before I became interested in firearms so I cannot recall type of bullet althought I strongly suspect it was a low velocity handgun.
And no this was not a image where the bullet was illuminated by an electronic flash (think Doc Edgerton) this was from continuos illumination.
Now getting the bullet in the frame accurately is going to be interesting, but hey you do not have any film/processing costs, just keep trying tilll you get it right.
Good luck
NukemJim
Answer is yes, when Nikon come out with a camera with a 1/4000 sec top shutter speed they had as part of an ad program a picture of a bullet in flight as a full page ad in a photo mag. IIRC the bullet was slightly blurred. This was before I became interested in firearms so I cannot recall type of bullet althought I strongly suspect it was a low velocity handgun.
And no this was not a image where the bullet was illuminated by an electronic flash (think Doc Edgerton) this was from continuos illumination.
Now getting the bullet in the frame accurately is going to be interesting, but hey you do not have any film/processing costs, just keep trying tilll you get it right.
Good luck
NukemJim
NukemJim really? Cool! I know that lighting has to play a major part in it as well. Sorry, I didn't mention this in my OP, but I was not talking about trying to capture high velocity bullets 1,200+ FPS. I was just talking about pellets or low velocity .22 colibri ammo. Heck, maybe even arrows as well.
Do you guys remember the original Omen movie from the 70s with Gregory Peck? Remember the end where the cop shoots him before he got to stab Damian? They show the bullet leaving the gun in slow motion. That camera they used couldn't have been too sophisticated for that time 30+ years ago. I remember a special documentary they did on that movie where they talked about that scene and that they had to use so much lighting that they had to shoot the scene very quickly because the lights made it so hot that it was actually melting the coating on the bullet.
Ausserordeutlich, I have sort of done what you said with my normal digi cam. Not the mini DV. I regular cam for still images. It's fun to use the flash and stop the blades on a fan. The pic is so clear that it looks like the fan isn't even on.
Do you guys remember the original Omen movie from the 70s with Gregory Peck? Remember the end where the cop shoots him before he got to stab Damian? They show the bullet leaving the gun in slow motion. That camera they used couldn't have been too sophisticated for that time 30+ years ago. I remember a special documentary they did on that movie where they talked about that scene and that they had to use so much lighting that they had to shoot the scene very quickly because the lights made it so hot that it was actually melting the coating on the bullet.
Ausserordeutlich, I have sort of done what you said with my normal digi cam. Not the mini DV. I regular cam for still images. It's fun to use the flash and stop the blades on a fan. The pic is so clear that it looks like the fan isn't even on.
TargetTerror
New member
Photography is one of my other main hobbies, and I've thought quite a bit about how to get a shot of a bullet in flight. You have 2 main problems:
1. Duration of the shot.
2. Timing of the shot.
Duration of the shot is pretty straightforward. You can either use a very short shutter speed (1/4000 may do it, but I don't have any first hand experience with this though I can only speculate), or use a flash as your primary form of illumination. The duration of a camera flash is very short, in the range of 1/20,000/sec to 1/60,000/sec. That should stop everything short of me driving around a racetrack
The main problem is timing. In short, good luck. Take a bullet moving relatively slowly, say 800fps. Ignoring atmospheric and other effects that slow a bullet down for now, that bullet will be 800 feet away from you after 1 sec. That means that it takes 1/800 of a sec to move 1 foot. Or 1/1600 of a foot to move 6 inches, which is really the range you want to be getting the bullet in to make it visible in the photograph (ie, you probably want the bullet ~6 inches or so from the gun, give or take a few inches, in your photo for best framing/composition, at least to my eye). (sorry if my math is off, but i think its right. In any event, you don't have very much time )
The problem is that you need to have the camera trip the shutter or flash at precisely the right time to get the framing of the photo correct. You could try pushing the trigger and shutter button at or about the same time, but you'd probably just wind up shooting yourself out of frustration before you got the photo you want. They different devices designed for this purpose to trip the shutter on the camera. You can get ligth sensitive devices (bases it off of muzzle flash) or sound devices (bases it off of the report). You can then have the device fine tune, often in small fractions of a second, when it tells the camera/flash to go off. You usually need a more professional camera to use these devices, as many of the less expensive ones lack the proper hookups. I highly doubt that your camcorder has what you would need.
Another way to deal with timing is to simply take a lot of photos. That is where cameras that can take thousands of frames/sec are useful. Now you just set the camera rolling and fire away. You will then have a few photos with the bullet in flight, and you can choose the best one. The downside is that you now have thousands of photos to look through and deal with. The cost of such cameras is also a bit of a downer. You can probably buy a very nice car or two for the price of one of them.
1. Duration of the shot.
2. Timing of the shot.
Duration of the shot is pretty straightforward. You can either use a very short shutter speed (1/4000 may do it, but I don't have any first hand experience with this though I can only speculate), or use a flash as your primary form of illumination. The duration of a camera flash is very short, in the range of 1/20,000/sec to 1/60,000/sec. That should stop everything short of me driving around a racetrack
The main problem is timing. In short, good luck. Take a bullet moving relatively slowly, say 800fps. Ignoring atmospheric and other effects that slow a bullet down for now, that bullet will be 800 feet away from you after 1 sec. That means that it takes 1/800 of a sec to move 1 foot. Or 1/1600 of a foot to move 6 inches, which is really the range you want to be getting the bullet in to make it visible in the photograph (ie, you probably want the bullet ~6 inches or so from the gun, give or take a few inches, in your photo for best framing/composition, at least to my eye). (sorry if my math is off, but i think its right. In any event, you don't have very much time
)The problem is that you need to have the camera trip the shutter or flash at precisely the right time to get the framing of the photo correct. You could try pushing the trigger and shutter button at or about the same time, but you'd probably just wind up shooting yourself out of frustration before you got the photo you want. They different devices designed for this purpose to trip the shutter on the camera. You can get ligth sensitive devices (bases it off of muzzle flash) or sound devices (bases it off of the report). You can then have the device fine tune, often in small fractions of a second, when it tells the camera/flash to go off. You usually need a more professional camera to use these devices, as many of the less expensive ones lack the proper hookups. I highly doubt that your camcorder has what you would need.
Another way to deal with timing is to simply take a lot of photos. That is where cameras that can take thousands of frames/sec are useful. Now you just set the camera rolling and fire away. You will then have a few photos with the bullet in flight, and you can choose the best one. The downside is that you now have thousands of photos to look through and deal with. The cost of such cameras is also a bit of a downer. You can probably buy a very nice car or two for the price of one of them.
You should also need fast film as well but I think all the impressive photos of bullets cutting cards in two were made before the current crop of high speed film (as different from high speed photography).
Along the same lines, some people claim to be able to see a bullet in flight but obviously you have to have exceptional eyesight and it helps to be standing directly behind the gun. Naturally, the bigger the projectile, the easier it is and in my case, I have actually only seen projectiles in flight when I had actually fired them from a 105mm howitizer. I have also seen 4.1" mortar projectiles in flight. I can't claim to have seen anything else like that, however.
While we're on the subject, it is also claimed that exceptional eyesight is one of the things that makes a good shooter, along with certain other physical abilities. Pistol and revolver shooting requires the use of your arms, it goes without saying, and the shorter and stronger your arms are, the better shooter you could become, all other things being equal. I myself am rather tall with very long arms, not especially strong and now have failing eyesight. I'll have to stick with howitizers.
Along the same lines, some people claim to be able to see a bullet in flight but obviously you have to have exceptional eyesight and it helps to be standing directly behind the gun. Naturally, the bigger the projectile, the easier it is and in my case, I have actually only seen projectiles in flight when I had actually fired them from a 105mm howitizer. I have also seen 4.1" mortar projectiles in flight. I can't claim to have seen anything else like that, however.
While we're on the subject, it is also claimed that exceptional eyesight is one of the things that makes a good shooter, along with certain other physical abilities. Pistol and revolver shooting requires the use of your arms, it goes without saying, and the shorter and stronger your arms are, the better shooter you could become, all other things being equal. I myself am rather tall with very long arms, not especially strong and now have failing eyesight. I'll have to stick with howitizers.
TargetTerror
New member
These are actually much more related than you might think. Basically, for any photograph/vido, there is a certain amount of light that needs to reach the recording medium (medium being film, a digital camera's sensor chip, etc). Not enough light and the image is undersexposed (no detail, all black). Too much light and the image is overexposed (very bright, white. Some detail is retain with film unless you REALLY overexpose, but once you exceed a sensors capapcity, there is no image there whatsoever).
To get a correct exposure, you need to match the current light available to the light range of the medium. You do this by varying the shutter speed (slower shutter speed = more light) and aperture (the iris in your lens, works much like your eye. the more open, the more light).
The problem with very high speed photography like what we are talking about is that the short shutter durations don't allow very much light in. So, you need a very large aperture and (more importantly) a lot of light in the scene to start out with. With a flash, this is less of a problem since the flash is the primary source and can be adjusted as needed.
Higher speed film just lets you use a slower shutter speed and smaller aperture and still have the correct exposure. That said, as you use faster films (or bump of the ISO sensitivity on your digital camera) the images get grainier, noisier, and just generally nastier in general. Personally, I would prefer a slower film/iso with a more powerful flash for an application such as this.
There has been high speed film available for a long time, many decades. While the latest versions are certainly better, they are a far cry from regular speed film.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"That camera they used couldn't have been too sophisticated for that time 30+ years ago."
Don't kid yourself.
Some of the early nuclear explosions were filmed with cameras capable of capturing upwards 100,000 frames a second.
Don't kid yourself.
Some of the early nuclear explosions were filmed with cameras capable of capturing upwards 100,000 frames a second.
In the early 80's friend of mine worked for Lockheed in Santa Cruz.
His job was to take pictures of det cord burn rates, armour piercing projectiles, etc. with the world's fastest camera.
He explained it was a giant, high speed drum, covered with film, that was brought up to very high speed, sort of like a vulcan, and, then triggered.
Frame rates were in the millions, IIRC, but, don't know if that was per minute, or second...
The hard part was synching the event and the camera.
You can't burn 120,000 feet of det cord, in a second, to see what the burn rate is...
S
His job was to take pictures of det cord burn rates, armour piercing projectiles, etc. with the world's fastest camera.
He explained it was a giant, high speed drum, covered with film, that was brought up to very high speed, sort of like a vulcan, and, then triggered.
Frame rates were in the millions, IIRC, but, don't know if that was per minute, or second...
The hard part was synching the event and the camera.
You can't burn 120,000 feet of det cord, in a second, to see what the burn rate is...
S
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
I saw one of these cameras in action in the service. It is indeed like a vulcan, but it actually sounds like a jet turbine winding up.
If memory serves, det cord burns at 23,000 feet per second. That's New York to LA in 7 minutes!