←back to thread

615 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jfengel ◴[] No.45650016[source]
Ah, two billion. The first several times I saw this it looked like "twenty eight", which didn't seem terribly interesting.
replies(1): >>45651089 #
tredre3 ◴[] No.45651089[source]
The video is definitely more interesting than 28 fps but it's also not really 2B fps.

It captures two billion pixels per second. Essentially he captures the same scene several times (presumably 921,600 times to form a full 720 picture), watching a single pixel at a time, and composite all the captures together for form frames.

I suppose that for entirely deterministic and repeatable scenes, where you also don't care too much about noise and if you have infinite time on your hands to capture 1ms of footage, then yes you can effectively visualize 2B frames per second! But not capture.

replies(5): >>45651258 #>>45651278 #>>45651562 #>>45654882 #>>45655006 #
1. nkrisc ◴[] No.45651278[source]
Each pixel was captured at 2 billion frames per second, even if techinically they were separate events. Why not call it (FPS / pixels) frames per second?