Is it possible to ...

dakid

dakid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
561
Edit My Images
Yes
It is possible to take a photograph of bullet, with a standard DSLR?

I know that proper high-speed photography has special equipment, but my brother shoots .22 rifles and I'd like to try and take a photo of him with the bullet leaving the gun. I'm thinking it's probably impossible, but before I write it off and simply settle for a suitably dramatic puff of smoke, I thought I'd make sure!

Has anyone ever tried this? :thinking:
 
put the camera in front of the gun and simontaneously with your finger on the trigger and a remote cord (hope you have one), press fire.





I

Have

Been

Drinking

Tonight. :thumbs:


ps. don't try this at home.
 
A "standard" .22 rimfire sub-sonic travels at about 800 ft/sec/sec
while the high velocity round goes at about 1100 ft/sec/sec a now maybe a few technical bods will be able to tell you if you can capture an image moving at that speed, I doubt it with a "normal DSLR" though
 
LOL. I'm pretty sure these sort of shots are done with a special cameras with rotary high speed shutters.

IIRC correctly the muzzle velocity from a 12 bore shotgun was around 1400 to 1800 feet per second depending on ammo. Even at 8 or ten frames per second and using hi speed sync (if it can keep up) you might get lucky I suppose. Show us the pics if you try it, but be careful! :D
 
It's not the camera that's the problem, you could capture the images with a box brownie. The trick is to have a flash that fires for a very short duration in order to freeze the bullet. The other tiny little problem would be to set up the timing so that the flash fired at exactly the right time, something normally done with a sensor that detects movement.
 
IIRC from my "practical shotgun" days ( shooting steel plates at "silly" distances)
The Muzzle velocity for "normal loads" was around 1200ft / sec/sec the solid or rifled slugs were around 1500ft sec/sec
 
LOL. It's been a while now mate but there was definitely ammo available for clay shooting which was good for around 1800 feet per sec. (non magnum loads) It didn't make the slightest bit of difference IMHO either, if you were behind 'em you were still behind 'em. :D

Solid loads are illegal btw except for police/military :D
 
35 years ago by sheer luck I captured a 107mm mortar grenade leaving a mortar launch tube, with 1/200th second shutter time (Olympus Trip mechanical camera), just 3 feet out of the tube. It was a blurred streak, but the grenade's shape was still recognizable.

However, a mortar grenade is one of the slowest possible projectiles.

To capture the .22 you would need a setup in pitch-dark with an open shutter, whereby the shot triggers the flashgun.
 
Everyone is basing their theories on the bullet travelling at a tangent to the camera...hence the quick response needed.

If the bullet were to be travelling directly towards the camera then it would be in frame for much longer...relatively speaking.

Brilliant idea...yes, yes, I know....I've always been good at coming up with solutions to difficult problems.

Bob

PS..Probably best to get a friend to do the camera bit and you do the trigger pulling it.
 
A more sensible offering this time...I've woken up now.

Does the shot have to be posed in a field during the day or is it simply a shot of your brother shooting?

I figure that the bullet will be at it's hottest as it leaves the barrel. Why not set up somewhere very dark where you can have a long exposure...the barrel tip in almost total darkness and the lock, stock and brother with a little more light.

I suspect that you might catch the blurred bullet's exit puff and maybe a small trail....worth a try?

Bob
 
i think canon bobs idea is a good one although it might not work
 
What an excellent challenge this would be - I'd love to try photographing a round leaving the barrel - I have seen images of someone using a 1D to get amazing shots like this (the 1D using shutter speed of 1/16,000s!) not sure my flash would keep up without strobing though?

Let us know how it goes when you've tried it - unless you use Bob's idea & then I'm not sure you'd be up to much reporting afterwards :lol:
 
Think I'll go for the perpendicular-to-or-behind technique, if it's all the same to everyone ;)

Yes, I realise that with normal equipment it's not easy, but that's why I was asking such photographic geniuseseses as yourselves (is it working yet?).

I think the flash idea is great, and I wonder if I couldn't borrow/hire a light-beam-triggered shutter-release which might not be extortionately expensive? Alternatively if I can get a bright light and use high ISO, maybe I can shoot off a few 6.5fps shots at 1/1000 and see if I get lucky!
 
At 1/1000s even low velocity rounds will travel 1ft during the exposure, around 12x it's own length so it will be a big old blur. A Canon 580ex burst on 1/16 power should be enough to freeze the bullet but the timing is still going to be a problem.
 
Canon Bob said:
Everyone is basing their theories on the bullet travelling at a tangent to the camera...hence the quick response needed.

If the bullet were to be travelling directly towards the camera then it would be in frame for much longer...relatively speaking.

Brilliant idea...yes, yes, I know....I've always been good at coming up with solutions to difficult problems.

Bob

PS..Probably best to get a friend to do the camera bit and you do the trigger pulling it.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here:thinking: You set the camera (costing mega bucks) in front of the barrel (as it stays in the frame longer) and something triggers the flash?????

Wouldn't the bullet stay in the frame/lens/camera body longer than you require to get the shot :shrug::thinking:

If your timing is out - no image and no camera!:bang:
 
dakid said:
It is possible to take a photograph of bullet, with a standard DSLR?
Click to expand...

Yes- here you go!
Bullet_brushed.jpg6c9dd3a4-d711-4ce6-a9cc-26c5b2a0c69d.jpgLarge.jpg


Now if it's just come out the end of a gun that's a different matter!
 
I have always wondered this. I have a .22 rifle too. I think i might give it a shot this weekend... get it, shot :lol:

Sorry thats a really bad joke
 
I think my Sony camcorder can do 1/20,000 second shutter speeds at 25 frames per second- so you might be lucky and catch something that way? I think illumination would be the main problem though. I've tried catching the water splash photos in this way and things have to be very bright.
 
CT said:
LOL. It's been a while now mate but there was definitely ammo available for clay shooting which was good for around 1800 feet per sec. (non magnum loads) It didn't make the slightest bit of difference IMHO either, if you were behind 'em you were still behind 'em. :D

Solid loads are illegal btw except for police/military :D
Click to expand...


You could be right CT I rarely shoot clays they go to damned fast :D
Now practical shot gun was a differant matter, the targets were static, it was us that moved "against the clock"

"Practical shotgun" is a "discipline" where you use a shotgun with more than three rounds in the chamber.. section 1 firearm... Remmington 1100 was a popular choice a few years ago when I was involved, as it could be legally converted or easilly or bought with a 5 / 8 /11 round chamber IIRC ( with a section 1 firearms licence)
solid slugs are also available under section 1 firearms licence strictly for target shooting only, usually a 6"x6" sollid steel plate or RSJ section was on the receiving end.

We used light loads as well to take down the lighter "plates"
and sometimes the "SG" loads as well as the 3" magnum.
But I am waffling
Boys and their toys !:D
 
Gilly B said:
Am I missing something here:thinking: You set the camera (costing mega bucks) in front of the barrel (as it stays in the frame longer) and something triggers the flash?????

Wouldn't the bullet stay in the frame/lens/camera body longer than you require to get the shot :shrug::thinking:

If your timing is out - no image and no camera!:bang:
Click to expand...

It was a little tongue in cheek Gilly....hence the later post.:D

Bob
 
I think i worked out, may be wrong though, very wrong but if a pellet is traveling at say 800 feet per second then if you take a shot at 4,000th sec then the pellet would have moved half a foot?
 
rather than using a flashgun that might not be fast enough, why not setup up some floodlights to really light up the scene, then set the camera to its fastest setting and just keep trying, would be cool if it did come out.
 
.22 winchester subsonics come out the end at about 1020-1040 feet per second , then you have something like cci stingers at about 1800 fps .
 
you could fake it by capturing the puff of smoke (and flash) in one shot
and superimpose a static bullet (with a bit of blur)
 
R8JimBob88 said:
I think i worked out, may be wrong though, very wrong but if a pellet is traveling at say 800 feet per second then if you take a shot at 4,000th sec then the pellet would have moved half a foot?
Click to expand...

Nope, think you're abacus is missing a few beads :D

800 feet per second means 1/800s shutter would capture 1ft

So, double the shutter to halve the distance means 1/1600s would be half a foot.

1/4000s would be 4000/800=5 which is 0.20 of a foot.
 
Damn, I got 0.2ft first time and then tried it again and got half a foot :( :lol: Nobody else picked up on it though!
 
donutagain said:
.22 winchester subsonics come out the end at about 1020-1040 feet per second , then you have something like cci stingers at about 1800 fps .
Click to expand...

Yep your quite right there are several "inhanced" rounds about. but the standard subsonics travel well below the speed of sound (which is a little over 1100 feet / sec /sec at sea level,BTW) at around 800 feet / sec /sec
whilst the standard high velocity rounds a little over the speed of sound at 1200 ft / sec /sec
(a slight typo in my previous post)
I was using the standard figures to show what minimum speeds dakid was up against, without getting too heavilly involved in balistics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top