Newsflash: f0.0 lens and photography

ziggy53 · August 25, 2005

Yeah, right!

I found this site where this guy claims to have developed a system which provides f0.0 and allows the photography of things "2 seconds into the future".

http://www.mudhaus.com/f00.html

Nevermind that f0.0 is functionally and mathematically impossible.

He has photographs of the supposed procedure:

http://www.mudhaus.com/camera.html

which he claims (left photo) show him injecting "Cesium gas" into the lens. In actuality, it appears he has attached a can of "Dust Off" or similar to the PC connector of a lens. (Most people probably don't know that some lenses have PC connectors on them.)

The copyright of the opening page shows, "© 2001-2012 MUDHAUS". "2012"?

This guy is either joking or disturbed. Anybody know which it is?

ziggy53

mercphoto · August 25, 2005

ziggy53 wrote:

This guy is either joking or disturbed. Anybody know which it is?

Who knows, but you are correct that f/0.0 is an impossibility. This doesn't stop people from claiming such things though. I remember about seven years back a girl I was dating showed me a brochure for a natural cures and remedies show she was going to attend. One merchant listed tablets whose main active ingredient was tachyons. I forget the suppposed health benefit. But I burst out laughing and told her this guy needs to ditch the snake oil trade show and apply for a Nobel prize in Physics. She didn't get it, and my ridiculing her "natural" remedies didn't help my standings with her any. Oh well. Call me Mr. Rational.

Khaos · August 25, 2005

Yeah, but was she hot?

rofl

ziggy53 · August 25, 2005

Takin' all those "tachyons" I'll bet she was "Electrifying"!

mercphoto · August 25, 2005

Khaos wrote:

Yeah, but was she hot?rofl

Sigh..... (need I say more?)

luckyrwe · August 25, 2005

Reminds me of the choices of bracelets I see from street vendors: magnetic, copper, aluminum, titanium, white gold... what gives? I guess at this rate carrying a lot of coin change in my pocket is good for my sex life?

Now back to the 0.0, true it is not feasable but I guess you can "round down." Stops below 2 would go 1.4, 1.0, .7, .5. .35, .25, .17, .12, .8.... yea I can see how even rounding off would not work. "Rounding off" .8 to zero is an infinite number of stops away!

Does anyone know the maximum f/stop of the human eye?

mercphoto · August 25, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

Reminds me of the choices of bracelets I see from street vendors: magnetic, copper, aluminum, titanium, white gold... what gives?

Simple. There are a lot of stupid people out there, willing to believe phony claims, and part with their money in the process. PT Barnum would still be a rich man, even today. This is why we need better science education in school. If you have children in Kansas, leave now.

As per the f-stop of the human eye, I'm not sure but it would be fun to know. Me personally, I'm tired of a fixed focal length eye. I don't want a prime eye, I want a zoom eye!

DJ-S1 · August 25, 2005

This was done as an art project. There's a photo for each day of 2002, and they are quite good. Nobody is selling anything, it's not a scam or a trick. Someone's just being clever and artsy. Or trying to, anyway. My $.02USD.

luckyrwe · August 25, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

As per the f-stop of the human eye, I'm not sure but it would be fun to know. Me personally, I'm tired of a fixed focal length eye. I don't want a prime eye, I want a zoom eye!

As for the eye's focal length, this is interesting.

Magnification-wise we have a 200mm eye. Walk outside and you can resolve the detail that a 200mm lens on a 35m camera would give you.

Perspective-wise we have a 50mm eye, the standard depth expected between objects.

Totality-of-view-wise we have an 8mm eye. We have peripheral vision that extends to 180 degrees on most of us.

No wonder eyes are so expensive.

ashby · August 25, 2005

Canon had this little number in the 60's. Based on it's being 4X faster than the human eye, I would guess the eye is about f/1.4.

tlittleton · August 29, 2005

It's true! I have a picture of the lens!
The new Canon F0.0 L 400mm DO IS!

There might be issues when using the onboard flash though
Here's a view of it mounted on a 20D...

ziggy53 · August 29, 2005

I guess everything is bigger in Texas!

(I was born in Texas, Lackland AFB. Once a Texan, always a Texan.)

zigy53

RickP66 · August 29, 2005

ziggy53 wrote:

Takin' all those "tachyons" I'll bet she was "Electrifying"!

Well, at least she was a fast girl...

gus · August 29, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

Simple. There are a lot of stupid people out there, willing to believe phony claims, and part with their money in the process. PT Barnum would still be a rich man, even today. This is why we need better science education in school. If you have children in Kansas, leave now.

Every few months here the news has a story of someone whom has lost 20k..50k even $100 000 to the nigerian scam.

That alone shows that it must keep going. Can you believe that people think they are seriously chosen at random to recieve this email & that it is true

photobug · August 30, 2005

Hooey, hooey, HOOEY!

ziggy53 wrote:

This guy is either joking or disturbed. Anybody know which it is?

The engineer in me can't help but in all politeness say that this is the biggest bunch of hooey I've seen in a while.

I agree that the eqpt photo looks like he's injecting Dust-Off into the lens. I suspect that's exactly how that photo was taken -- it was sooooo convenient that the gas cannister was completely out of focus, wasn't it?

Let's assume for the moment that he actually *DID* inject cesium gas into the lens. According to the BBC article (if that's even on the up-and-up), the beam of light emerged from the Cesium gas about a few billionths of a second before it entered. Well, for the camera setup, even if true, "who cares?". Keep in mind, there's already a built-in time delay of about 1 nanosecond per foot just for the light that makes up the image to travel from the object to the front of the lens, so light from an object 10 feet away already took 10 nanoseconds to reach it.

Notice that he hasn't made sure that he's even using the same type of gas as the British researchers and no measurements have been done to validate that he obtained the same result. Or for that matter, that it would even have the same effect using his set-up (or as the Brits might say, "using his kit").

The scary part is that this guy probably read the BBC article and actually believes that he's taking time-travel photos!! ....Not that that should surprise anyone, because the USA is obviously way under-educated in the sciences ... the stuff that people believe without question just blows me away. PT Barnum would just as correct today (about one being born every minute) as he was during his own lifetime.

The other possibility is that this guy actually knows better, but is taking advantage of the public by using this unproven "science" to create lots of P.R./market buzz about his photos. That's somewhat unethical, but he would know that the police won't exactly be breaking down his door over it, either.

JamesJWeg · August 30, 2005

I thought it was jsut a joke, good humor, I laughed.

James.

Newsflash: f0.0 lens and photography

Comments