Is it possible to film the movement of a laser beam on a high speed camera?

[annyong]

Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, So, per millionth of a second, it travels .186 miles, or 982 feet. There are high speed digital video cameras capable of speeds over 1 million frames per second. If I was to set up a laser on a foggy night and film the beam traveling one mile at 1 million frames per second, it should take 5.37 frames. Does any video like this exist?

[YT2095]

but it requires light to expose the film

so as each millionth of a second goes by, it takes longer for the light to get back to cam.

[swansont]

I think you'd have to film perpendicular to the beam travel, and the purpose of the fog is to scatter the light into the camera.

 

I'm not aware of anybody having done this.

[annyong]

I was indeed implying filming perpendicular to the beam so you can see the beam traversing the entire distance, and filming during fog or through some sort of suspended particles, so that you could see the position and length of the beam in mid-air.

With a laser beam bright enough in darkness, I would think it would be possible to capture, even with an extremely small exposure time such as a millionth of a second. I have read of cameras capable of 200 million frames per second, with which you could capture around 5 feet of light travel per frame. I think this would be very interesting to see, to actually see a beam of light starting to travel out from it's source. I wonder if anyone has done any experiments with this kind of thing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I recall seeing a picture of this sort of thing, but I don't know how good my memory is or where I saw it. It was pretty neat though -- it was two rows of mirrors aimed at each other and angled so the laser would bounce from one to the other down the line.

 

I think.

[MrSandman]

Most likely not so. Your camera needs light to make the picture so the shutter speed being faster just gives you a dark picture. If you have a really bright room already then place the camera to look at the laser(head on). you could possibly see evidence of the light traveling. Side ways I'm pretty sure would cause lots of problems. Actually, you wouldn't be able to see the beam until close to where it hits the object.

[annyong]

But that is my point exactly... This experiment would take place in total darkness and the laser beam, perpendicular to the camera, would travel through fog or something similar and would appear as a very bright visible line against the dark background. Even at very low exposure times, I would have to believe there would be a laser bright enough to show up, at least as a very faint line against the darkness surrounding it.

[MrSandman]

However, that wouldn't work because light is particles(at least they think so) and must hit something and bounce off it at 90degrees to hit the camera to make the photo. You know that light doesn't reflect off air. Now, you think I'll just mist the area. Then you don't need the Camera. Cuz, you be able to see it. However, here is something you can do:

 

Take the high speed Camera

Mist an area.

 

Point the laser going perpendicular to the camera and start

the camera, and have the laser start with it and end with it. Now, you should have a video of the light traveling through the mist.

[swansont]

However, that wouldn't work because light is particles(at least they think so) and must hit something and bounce off it at 90degrees to hit the camera to make the photo. You know that light doesn't reflect off air. Now, you think I'll just mist the area. Then you don't need the Camera. Cuz, you be able to see it. However, here is something you can do:

 

Take the high speed Camera

Mist an area.

 

Point the laser going perpendicular to the camera and start

the camera, and have the laser start with it and end with it. Now, you should have a video of the light traveling through the mist.

 

annyong already mentioned fog. You're describing the exact same scenario an in the OP.

[insane_alien]

actually, i recal something like this but it is on a whole other scale. infact, it was much much bigger and involves an exploding star.

 

here it is.

 

it is actually the light you se moving and not the gas cloud.

[swansont]

more on V838 Monocerotis

 

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2003/10

[MrSandman]

No one has ever seen an exploding star at least not one that destroyed it's self.

[insane_alien]

? wow, go look through a telescope. they are called novas, supernovaes, hyper novaes and there are probably a few other stellar explosion phenomenon that i am missing but they have all been observed by astronomers. also, there are plenty of remenants around.

[MrSandman]

There is remenants, but no actual visual observation of one.

[insane_alien]

sigh, there have been many, even in antiquity

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_1987A

 

this is a recent(though not the most recent) one

 

its not as if these things are quick and clean like a camera flash, the can last months and years.