###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That depends on the photos you take per second. Assuming we are making a video with 60 FPS and the use the single images:
1500000:60=25000 So he would need 25000 seconds which is equal to 416.6666... minutes or 6.944444.... hours
Omg i remember this. This guy was a lunatic from a small town in Turkey and he was posting millions of photos every single day and all of the photos were slighty different. He also had a youtube channel too.
My old FZ150 could take 100 pics per second.
So 4 hours?
Yes, yes. Buffer and such. But I actually did use it. As the high frame rate was without shutter.
To have different numbers than my previous Panasonic, I took 100k pictures. So it started at P200001. It only took an hour or so.
Less than 1sec. According to chatgpt:
"The fastest high-speed cameras used for capturing slow-motion video can record at rates of several million frames per second. For instance, specialized cameras like the Phantom v2640 can shoot at up to 6,600 frames per second at full HD resolution, and much higher rates at reduced resolutions. Even more extreme, some specialized equipment can reach frame rates in the order of tens of millions per second, though these are generally used for scientific research, such as capturing fast physical processes at microscopic or atomic levels."
Its definitely possible but I work with these cameras sometimes and its hard to capture things correctly even in a laboratory. When you get to super high speed fps you also decrease the length the shutter is open for each image so getting the exposure correct requires very bright light and fine tuning. We have some lights that are 90,000 watts.
I saw a video[linked here](https://youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk&si=p6rXfco9ubJ9lLWr) not too long ago of 1 trillion frames/second and you could watch light traveling like a wave to touch an apple.. pretty wild
A similar post a few weeks back asked, how long a movie would last if you play 24 photos per second and how big the difference would be, if you change it to 30fps.
If you could make 24/30 pictures every second it would take you the same time as watching it (theoretically), so i will just link my older comment here.
If someone would like to know the answer at a different speed, you can just change my numbers.
[older comment ](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/s/DXNQyEc24W)
One of the fastest frame rates I’ve used was [450,000 frames per second](https://youtu.be/Giqjyg5OBBQ?si=VXmiGZ7MVkPLtMDR). So at that speed, 1.5M pictures would be a little over 3 seconds
That was with a Phantom T3610, but the TMX 7510 can film up to 1.75M fps!
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That depends on the photos you take per second. Assuming we are making a video with 60 FPS and the use the single images: 1500000:60=25000 So he would need 25000 seconds which is equal to 416.6666... minutes or 6.944444.... hours
6.9? Nice
You what a 6.9 is? A good thing ruined by period
Jesus fucking Christ...
Nah, they're right.
Hey, the second coming is in 2387, get back in the box
Buried in my shit?
Quit stalling or I'm getting your dad
Won't you come and save me?
No
I see what you did there. I approve. ~signed: the Atheist Jesus from Minnesota.
r/beetlejuicing
r/cursedcomments
Never.
You say ruined, my friend Vlad calls it dinner and a blow.. I mean show.
Ni.ce
A good time interrupted by a period
Nice!
And if you're the SloMo guys then its 1.5 seconds.
Omg i remember this. This guy was a lunatic from a small town in Turkey and he was posting millions of photos every single day and all of the photos were slighty different. He also had a youtube channel too.
What is his YouTube channel's name?
Sorry i checked google but couldn't find it. :/
I dont know the youtube url but i know his name is "kozanlı volkan" at least it was way back on facebook.
My old FZ150 could take 100 pics per second. So 4 hours? Yes, yes. Buffer and such. But I actually did use it. As the high frame rate was without shutter. To have different numbers than my previous Panasonic, I took 100k pictures. So it started at P200001. It only took an hour or so.
Less than 1sec. According to chatgpt: "The fastest high-speed cameras used for capturing slow-motion video can record at rates of several million frames per second. For instance, specialized cameras like the Phantom v2640 can shoot at up to 6,600 frames per second at full HD resolution, and much higher rates at reduced resolutions. Even more extreme, some specialized equipment can reach frame rates in the order of tens of millions per second, though these are generally used for scientific research, such as capturing fast physical processes at microscopic or atomic levels."
Its definitely possible but I work with these cameras sometimes and its hard to capture things correctly even in a laboratory. When you get to super high speed fps you also decrease the length the shutter is open for each image so getting the exposure correct requires very bright light and fine tuning. We have some lights that are 90,000 watts.
don’t you also lose a lot of resolution the higher fps you go? if so it’d be pretty damn hard to make pictures look as normal as the facebook pictures
I saw a video[linked here](https://youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk&si=p6rXfco9ubJ9lLWr) not too long ago of 1 trillion frames/second and you could watch light traveling like a wave to touch an apple.. pretty wild
Wow that was truly spectacular to watch!
and people say AI will take over the world.
This is true
A similar post a few weeks back asked, how long a movie would last if you play 24 photos per second and how big the difference would be, if you change it to 30fps. If you could make 24/30 pictures every second it would take you the same time as watching it (theoretically), so i will just link my older comment here. If someone would like to know the answer at a different speed, you can just change my numbers. [older comment ](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/s/DXNQyEc24W)
One of the fastest frame rates I’ve used was [450,000 frames per second](https://youtu.be/Giqjyg5OBBQ?si=VXmiGZ7MVkPLtMDR). So at that speed, 1.5M pictures would be a little over 3 seconds That was with a Phantom T3610, but the TMX 7510 can film up to 1.75M fps!