Can a laser be used as an ultra-short flash for high-speed photography in vacuum?
Asked 3/31/2017
2 views
2 answers
0
I want to capture a very fast event: two cylindrical objects colliding at about 300 m/s. Since I don’t have access to a high-speed camera, I’m considering using several fixed cameras and freezing the motion with a very short light pulse (around 100 ns). The setup needs to operate under vacuum, which makes conventional flash equipment difficult or risky. A green laser and beam-shaping optics may be easier for me to use in this environment. Is a laser practical as a flash source for photography, and what problems should I expect—especially with pinhole cameras or coherent illumination?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
2
Are there any examples of using laser as a precise flash source for photography?
Yes. Laser light sources are used as "flash" of a duration down to a couple of femtoseconds. However the setup isn't one that I would refer to as a flash source for photography, nor can it be easily, nor cheaply, assembled on a typical hobbyist bench. Thorlabs for example offers off-the-shelf such femtosecond laser source.
Are there any intrinsic problems with this kind of setup?
- the speckle produced by the laser itself (also pointed out in a comment by Chris H), which looks like this and will produce a grainy appearance of your object:
Speckle can be reduced by the use of a "despeckler" (a device which vibrates in front of the laser beam and mitigates the speckle)
- controlling and triggering the laser to produce the brief flash of light you are looking for; a laser diode is similar to an LED in some ways, but it is far more sensitive to ESD, and can't be overdriven even for a short time (which many LED can, though it would reduce their life time). Your objects fly at 300m/s which is close to the speed of sound, this can be very fast depending on your imaging system's magnification ratio, hence, I suppose, your 100ns flash duration. Going into the electronic required for this may go beyond the scope of photo SE.
- producing an extended beam of light, of a size at least equal to your object. For this you will need a beam expander, this document from Newport shows you how to build one, you can buy one also from edmund optics or thorlabs.
Originally by user61932. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user61932
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes, lasers can be used as extremely short light sources, even far shorter than 100 ns, so the basic idea is possible in principle. However, lasers introduce major imaging problems because they are highly coherent.
The biggest issue is speckle: laser illumination produces a grainy interference pattern on the subject and image. With a pinhole camera, coherence can also create strong diffraction/interference artifacts, so you may see rings and other non-photographic patterns rather than a clean image.
Speckle can be reduced with a despeckler or by otherwise reducing coherence, but that adds complexity. Triggering and synchronizing the pulse with the exact moment of impact is also a major challenge.
Separately, operating cameras and optics in vacuum is nontrivial. Commercial cameras and lenses may not tolerate vacuum well, depending on the pressure and any sealed components.
So: a laser can serve as an ultra-short “flash,” and this is done in scientific imaging, but it is not a simple substitute for a normal photographic flash. The main intrinsic problems are coherence-related image artifacts, plus synchronization and vacuum-compatible hardware.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Are there strobes that can sustain peak output for a sub-second flash duration?
Can a high-power laser damage a camera lens or its coatings?
Does shutter speed affect flash exposure, and is “speed of light” the wrong term?
Why does the Canon 430EX III use flash pulses for AF assist by default instead of the infrared beam?
Why can a camera shoot a still at 1/4000s, but high-frame-rate video requires expensive cameras?
