----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Davidhazy" <andpph@xxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: speedframes
Exposure time should be real Blur (at right angle to motion) length divided
by vehicle speed
- problem is that the blur is hard to determine in this photograph. Want a
guess? 1/410 sec.!
:(
Andy
the blur is as you say hard to determine though I think the rumble pads on
the white line are about 10cm square and visually the blur at about 10-15
degrees off the perpendicular sees them only displaced by about half their
dimension, or a 50% inclrease in blur length. At his speed of291 kph or 80
meters per second (stupid speed, but I think he's trying to beat my
venerable fathers road speed of 320kph).. I was impressed the whole things
wasn't one big blur. I'm now told the camera records at 25fps.
On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:42 AM, karl shah-jenner wrote:
'a friend' just shattered his helmet and most of the frame faring when a
few
stone chips from oncoming vehicles hit his bike at speed.. yeah, this
person
was goofing around a bit too much.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~shahjen/speed.jpg is the image, and I'm
curious
whether anyone would be able to suggest a method of determining the
exposure
duration based on the speed and the (small!) amount of motion blur in the
frame?
