Shooting question {Literally}

paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
edited September 2014 in Fun & Weird
If two bullets were fired at the same time and passed each other, What shuitter speed would be required to catch the action. With or without flash
Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
«1

Comments

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,199Member
    The photos I have seen which froze bullets in the air have done so with high speed flash. I got the impression that was the only way to do it..
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    in 1/1000 sec., a pistol bullet (avg speed 1000 fps) will travel 1 ft. at 1/4000 sec, it is till a 3 inch blur, not counting odd focal plane shutter effects.

    Rifle bullets (avg speed 3000 fps) multiply that blur by 3.

    very high speed flash, and auto triggers or very high frame rates are indeed the only way to do this.

    ... H

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    We-ell, if the D750 had the rumored 8fps... but at the measly 6.5fps it actually has, no chance.
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 641Member
    I had a tough time shooting photos of my colleague shooting a .45 1911 yesterday. I wanted to get the slide going back and the shell casing being ejected. Event that happens rather quickly, and should have been done with a strobe rather than a fast shutter speed.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,172Member
    When the first 1/8000 shutter came out they took photos of bullets with it. It was interesting but it was still very blurry.. i would say the only way to do it with minimal blur would be using flash.
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    I do not believe D-SLR's have the capability to capture a bullet being fired from a firearm. It is not just the shutter speed that is the limiting factor but focusing on the bullet itself. It is for this reason the use very fast high-speed film cameras.

    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,085Moderator
    OK guys, the way to do this is to reduce the apparent movement of the bullet in flight by standing right in front of it.

    Next question?
    Always learning.
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    It is approximately 1/31,000 of a second to capture a .223 (m16/m4/nato 5.56) bullet. (I really simplified the math just to get close.)

    Data points: Bullet moves at 975 m/s. The bullet (not shell casing) is approximately 31.75mm. Basically how it is calculated (I believe - been a while since physics.) you have to calculate where the distance traveled is no more than the length of the object.

    •Formerly TTJ•
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    edited September 2014
    You need to be in a dark room. Use bulp mode and manual focus. And you need a flash that can put enough light on the bullet fast enough to stop the motion. But more than anything you need a trigger for the flash - one that fires the flash a fraction of a second after pulling the trigger of the gun.

    Flash and trigger is key - the rest is just hard work. I dont think a SB910 will do the trick. You need something that "burns faster" and you need that flash to be close to where the bullet passes.

    And please take care when using a firearm - do not do that in your living room :-)

    BTW a slow 9mm is moving at 330 meters/sec - that is 330.000 milimeters a sec. Using 1/33.000 flash speed the bullet will move 10 mm = motion blur = you need faster than that I think. In other words you need to check the manual of your flash to see the shortest burst time possible when the flash is dialed all the way down in power.

    I dont think it is a good idea to start out with 223Rem :-) You want an old airgun with a weak spring - pellet flying at something like 100 meters/sec. = much cheaper in ammo when you need a lot of testshots :-)

    Please share your pictures on the PAD :-)
    Post edited by henrik1963 on
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,172Member
    I always wanted to try something like this sound trigger.... http://www.cognisys-inc.com/HowTo/sound_act.php?osCsid=e59860ff10dbe4699e47fb032957546f
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,085Moderator
    If the stoopid @ssh**e politicians hadn't taken our pistols, I'd use a wheel gun and really tame reloads to get the shot.
    Always learning.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Probably have better luck setting up something to fire them with air. A small diameter PVC or something and compressed air. Shot at a lower speed it might be possible, but still a challenge with anything moving.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    If the stoopid @ssh**e politicians hadn't taken our pistols, I'd use a wheel gun and really tame reloads to get the shot.
    +1

    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,085Moderator
    Probably have better luck setting up something to fire them with air. A small diameter PVC or something and compressed air. Shot at a lower speed it might be possible, but still a challenge with anything moving.
    What? No smoke and flames? Where's the fun in that! :P
    Always learning.
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    @henrik1963 - you might be correct with the speed. That would be like 1/100,000s strobe flash to capture it. Maybe even higher like 1/300,000. Whatever it may be, I think the fun would wear out real fast.

    I was thinking the same as tcole1983 - spring loaded mechanism or air powered to send the bullet would probably be the best way.

    I got to talk to one of the top commercial photoshop editors in the area this weekend and it just reminded me that 99% of the "amazing" commercial shots you see are 100% pieced together in photoshop. Fake rain, all parts of a car are photographed separately, movement (showed motion) is either done by hand or is photographed in a very controlled environment. He is a gifted artist that truly can do anything in photoshop.

    Too many times people who haven't had exposure to someone in that industry segment, believe that these "unbelievable" images are actually captured in the camera. They never were. They are just a bunch of separate images put together.
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 641Member
    I used to work with a colleague who worked for Edgerton, but he has long since retired. They had a shutter that worked by electronically changing the polarization of two filters. It was blinking fast. Overkill for stopping bullets, but with enough light, it would do it.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    @Boheh_Hunter: You might well be right about commercial shots beeing 99% photoshop.

    One the one hand I can clearly see the benefit of working on my pictures in LR - they do get a lot better. And I am looking forward to start working in photoshop to get even better results.

    On the other hand when I look at old pictures taken with film I can clearly see what a skilled person can do with a camera.

    Sometimes it is just rewarding to solve a problem that prevents you from doing something in camera.

    In this case it might be possible to shoot a picture of say an exploding water mellon and photoshop a bullet in after the fact - but it will somehow not be as rewarding :-) Maybe I am just getting old :-)
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Probably have better luck setting up something to fire them with air. A small diameter PVC or something and compressed air. Shot at a lower speed it might be possible, but still a challenge with anything moving.
    What? No smoke and flames? Where's the fun in that! :P
    Ha. He just said the bullet. If you wanted the full effect of shooting the gun then it isn't an option. One could actually probably just drop a bullet through something to keep it straight and get the same as shooting it horizontally out of something. Just have to make sure you have a neutral background that won't shot the orientation.

    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    First it is no smoke and flames. And now it is just dropping the bullet = no exploding water mellons. Very practical but very boring :-)
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Suspend it from a wire and photoshop it out. That's what Hollywood does.
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    @Boheh_Hunter: You might well be right about commercial shots beeing 99% photoshop.

    ---Sometimes it is just rewarding to solve a problem that prevents you from doing something in camera....
    The guy I was talking to got his start hand piecing together parts of images (cut them out and paste them) and then airbrushed, fine brushed, sanded, airbrushed again, the images before photoshop. Very few commercial shots were ever done "in camera" - very few "amazing photographs" by celebrity photographers were not touched very heavily in photoshop. Most of them have a full time photoshop artist that does all their images to perfection. The only images you know that were not photoshopped are news photos. I hate to pull back the veil, but very few photos have not had extensive editing (darkroom) or photoshop taken to them. That is just part of the biz. The young and college kids can debate whether PS is wrong or debate the purity of it - the rest of us need to make a living and average/bad photos don't sell. ;)
    I used to work with a colleague who worked for Edgerton, but he has long since retired. They had a shutter that worked by electronically changing the polarization of two filters. It was blinking fast. Overkill for stopping bullets, but with enough light, it would do it.
    I have seen one of those mechanisms on the internet before. The major problem with that is the capture of the image. The ISO needed to expose that would be ridiculously high or the continuous light would have to be at a level so high that it is not feasible. That is why it has to be a powerful strobe.
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 641Member
    edited October 2014

    I have seen one of those mechanisms on the internet before. The major problem with that is the capture of the image. The ISO needed to expose that would be ridiculously high or the continuous light would have to be at a level so high that it is not feasible. That is why it has to be a powerful strobe.
    Of course, Edgerton was known for using this shutter to record nuclear explosions. A little bit more tricky than photographing bullets, but no external light source was required!
    Post edited by Symphotic on
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 372Member
    Seems like this should be theoretically easy. Set focus manually. Set aperture to something like f/8. Set ISO to 100. Set shutter to 1/60. Put bullet in gun. Put camera in canon. Synch triggers. Fire both. Remote trigger the camera...

    hmmm
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    @Bokeh_Hunter: For me it is not Photoshop or in camera. And it has nothing to do with beeing more pure.

    But even I know that if you get things right in camera you save a lot of time in front of the computer. I assume that the top dollor shooter knows how to get things right in camera and the use of Photoshop is to get better results than the average shooter.

    Making stupid mistakes and fixing them after the fact is a bad strategy IMO. Knowing more gives you better pictures - at least that is what I think.
  • TriShooterTriShooter Posts: 219Member
    Making mistakes is definitely a bad strategy, but being able to fix mistakes when they happen , and making them disappear is the difference between a professional craftsman, and others. This is generally true of everything from basket weaving to woodworking, and includes photography.
Sign In or Register to comment.