Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Leicaflex Problem
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:35:04 -0700

At 08:33 AM 7/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On 25 Jul 97,  ted grant wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Think about making an exposure of 1/8000 of a second!
>> That means the mirror goes up and down in almost the same time frame. To
>> the extent you do not think you have lost the image, when in actual fact
>> you lost it for 1/8000 of a second! :)
>
>Doubt this, but I'm a bit confused by your syntax above. I suspect that 
>the mirror has a finite physical limit on how fast it can go up and return 
>to rest. Shutter speed beyond this merely means that the mirror does the 
>best that it can, while the exposure is actually made in less time than 
>the mirror was operating. 
>
>Technology keeps allowing faster cyclic speeds for the mirror, but I doubt 
>that it's cyclic rate has reached 1/8000 second yet. Don't have 
>specfications here that say; does anyone know the minimum mirror cycle 
>time for the R8?
>--
>Roger Beamon  

My thoughts on the subject...

There is a minimum time your eye/brain can recognize. It's not very short
otherwise we would see the black between the frames on a motion picture, or
the retrace on a TV. I know some MP runs at 24fps. These things look
continuous to us because we cannot register the short interruption. There
is no way a camera mirror is going to flap so fast that you cannot see the
blink. Because you can see it, it's pretty slow. Erwin... any comment?

Jim