Photog here - this shutter speed is perfectly reasonable.
Remember the photog is against the brightness of the clear blue, sunny sky behind the subjects and needs to expose for the foreground too. A fast shutter speed helps do that.
If the camera is set to Aperture priority or indeed any setting which applies auto shutter-speed, this is not even slightly suspect.
Nothing here except wild, uninformed speculation.
*edit to add: the OP talks about 30fps - this is just utterly irrelevant for a still image
The average bullet velocity of an AR15 is 3000 ft/s.
the OP talks about 30fps - this is just utterly irrelevant for a still image
It is completely relevant, because that picture was almost certainly not taken by "click". The odds of capturing that on anything but a very high framerate camera (minimum of 10,000 fps) is about the same as winning the lottery. It's not going to happen. But similarly, the odds of getting that on a camera filming at 30fps is equally impossible. The bullet travels 100 ft per frame. You aren't going to get that picture at 30 fps.
The only reasonable assumptions (statistically speaking) are that the person who captured the image was using a high speed camera, or the image was a fake. The only possible "third option" is lottery winning luck...
...of which quite a bit of that was required for that day to have been as it appears.
On an unrelated note, the lottery is rigged, so there isn't really any such thing as "lottery winning luck."
I agree, having covered this aspect in a different thread here. My current thought is that what is seen is the trail of blood and tissue from Trump's ear. The bullet may be out of the scene to the right.
In all this, regardless of the speed of the shutter, there is the problem of how the photographer (or camera) knew when to open the shutter. Knowing "something is going to happen" is worthless if the timing must be to the millisecond or better.
Not sure, but I think I've heard somewhere that some cameras are set to take several pictures AFTER the button is pressed to help account for things like shut eyes or to help capture better moments than in initial button press?
Yes. That is certainly a thing you can do. It's called Burst mode. But it suffers the same framerate problem as a regular continuous camera. Most Burst modes are in the 10 fps range or so. Some go as high as 60 fps. I don't think there are any "high speed" burst mode cameras, because that would be kinda pointless. You want a lower framerate because reality doesn't usually move fast enough to get a meaningfully different picture 1/10,000th of a second later.
Unless of course, you are trying to take a picture of a bullet, in which case you would just use a regular high speed camera, or fake the picture.
Your ignorance is showing. Look up what "rolling shutter" is. A speeding bullet can absolutely be photographed at this speed albeit a lucky snap. Given the number of bullets being fired and the abundance of photogs in the area I would be more suspicious if a bullet DIDN'T show up on a photo. All professional cameras and most semi-pro camera are capable of doing this.
Go and check out what the Sony A9iii can do and that isnt even the flagship model.
You're going down a habbit hole that leads absolutely nowhere. Feel free to be distracted and waste your time, I'm not.
Why begin with an ad hominem? Does it add anything to the conversation?
albeit a lucky snap
As I said, lottery winning luck. A rolling shutter doesn't change the odds of capturing that perfect image. There are maybe 5 ft of photographic space where such an image could have been taken. Really, there is less, because the drama is substantially decreased if the bullet is further away in the image, or it is behind his head. So, being generous, 3000/5 = 600. So a 1 in 600 chance of capturing that image, assuming the person was taking photos once per second on a continual basis (which is itself HIGHLY unlikely).
Given the number of bullets being fired
There was ONE BULLET that went near Trumps head. One single bullet. Watch the film, that information is obvious. That particular bullet in the photo was also the first register, so, given that the bullet velocity is 3000 fps and the speed of sound is less than 1200fps, the decision to take that picture would have had to have happened BEFORE the first shot was fired.
Lucky shot indeed.
the abundance of photogs in the area
And yet, it was provided by the same person who was front and center for 9/11. What are the odds?
Even still, it was at best a 1 in 600 shot (I think I'm being very generous there). Did > 600 people simultaneously decide to take a close up picture of Trump at the highest shutter speed, on their professional quality camera, during the second before the first shot was fired?
Go and check out what the Sony A9iii
Well, I don't have the A9, but I do have an A7. I probably average 200 pictures per week on it. I have some idea what I can do with the camera. Assuming ignorance, without actually addressing the argument being made is not a good rebuttal.
On here yesterday someone cited that it was the same photographer that took the picture of Bush in the classroom on 911 when He was told of what happened. 🤔
Someone read the Miles Mathis paper which made this point days ago. I don't 100% agree with Mathis on his conclusion, but at least give credit where it is due.
Not a photographer. But don’t they regularly film in continuous so they can lift individual frames… or burst so as to have before and after shots in case of closed eyes etc?
That's true. You wouldn't normally have that fast of a shutter though. That would be deliberate.
I should add that there are a lot of factors that go into capturing that type of image. Some assumptions are being made about exposure times that might not be 100% accurate.
doesn't make sense to me because I though Trump had his own personal bodyguard's as well, because in the Q posts it mentioned years ago they did not trust SS, because of what happened to Don Jr back in the day. so if that is the case he put his own life at risk so that he could catch these guys in the act
agreed if this is true Trump had to have left his life in the Lord Himselfs hands. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, unless Im way off
Knowing Trump is deep state most wanted if I looked out and saw no protectors on the rooves or on the watertower I would have told someone or no gone out
As a long-time digital photographer, I feel compelled to chime in here. Today's modern digital cameras have some amazing technology built right into the camera's internal processors that control all those many functions.
Most days I will set the camera's shutter speed to "auto", and pick an f-stop to set my anticipated "depth of field" to give me control over what will be in focus when the finished image is captured and processed within the camera. Other times I will set the shutter speed and let the camera's internal processors determine the lens opening (f-stop). Beyond that, modern lenses for digital cameras have their own tiny microprocessors built in so the lens can communicate with the camera body to help eliminate shake and vibrations. These lenses are not inexpensive, but they can actually work very well to give the photographer greater creative choices.
Much of that equation depends on the photog's assignment - what he or she envisions the challenges they might encounter. My camera settings will vary accordingly - a posed fashion model vs a fighter jet zooming by at 400 mph, for example. I've done high fashion, air shows, public events, and wildlife in the field. The human behind the lens makes some of those calculations, but the camera itself contributes much to the creative process these days.
Just my $0.02 - worth exactly what you paid for it.
I'm not sure what you're implying and I'm not going to assume. But I too shoot almost exclusively in aperture priority (non-photo people: I pick the F stop, camera decides shutter speed, same as guy above)
It's extremely rare for cameras (of any brand and model) to pick 1/8000, even on a bright sunny day unless ISO is bumped up high (by the photographer). And if ISO was set to "auto", the chances of 1/8000 being selected is as good as zero because the camera is going to lower ISO first to something like 100, 125 or 160 (as low as it'll go on most cameras) before it increases shutter speed.
And there's no reason to bump up ISO when conditions are brightly lit unless you explicitly want to increase shutter speed. Any photographer worth squat is going to lower ISO on a sunny day because even with ISO 100, the shutter speed is going to be something like 1/1000 to 1/2000 anyway which is fast enough to capture all sorts of moving subjects including race cars.
What I'm trying to say is, getting the shutter speed up to 1/8000 was a deliberate choice made by the photographer who took the Trump shot. And just like the OP X post, I'd ask "Why?" unless he was expecting something very fast moving to happen.
Typically, the higher the ISO, the higher the noise - that will be true within any closed system. Quality optics and imagers with large cells and high quantum efficiency will allow shorter exposure times with the same ISO.
In any case, you are correct. A typical high end camera system will pick ISO's that favor picture quality. A photographer will pick settings for the moment.
On a side note, many moons back I had a project where they wanted to know if we could image a fast moving object (on industrial equipment) and I was able to get to an effective shutter speed of 1/2000000. The camera couldn't do it - that required specialized lighting. Jitter in the system required a camera shutter of around 1/20000.
When I worked on my PhD, digital cameras were first hitting the scene (I used conventional B&W film). I looked into converting my equipment to digital. At the time I believe Canon was selling an 8 megapixel digital camera for about $8,000. The conventional B&W film was equivalent to about 34 megapixels (resolution of about 5 microns). I just checked and 400 megapixel digital cameras are out there, if you want to pay around $8,000 :) Pretty interesting that state of the art digital cameras cost about the same as almost 30 years ago, but with 50x the resolution.
My cameras are able to take pictures before pressning the shutter, I have only used this on a few occasions to capture cannons shooting a salute.
If I remember correctly, you have to use a special setting and then half press. The camera start taking pictures at a fast pace without saving them. When the action takes place you press fully and you’ll have pictures from a few seconds back before you reacted.
It’s really cool and gives you a much bigger success rate. If his Sony camera have this feature, I don’t know.
Since there's lots of conjecture about real / shopped, how did the source determine 1/8000? Is there meta data on the image? I'd assume if they pulled the image from some website, it likely would have been resized before posting for site optimization.
Who is the photographer? Name him, and ask him why he used photography settings appropriate for showing a bullet in flight.
Photog here - this shutter speed is perfectly reasonable.
Remember the photog is against the brightness of the clear blue, sunny sky behind the subjects and needs to expose for the foreground too. A fast shutter speed helps do that.
If the camera is set to Aperture priority or indeed any setting which applies auto shutter-speed, this is not even slightly suspect.
Nothing here except wild, uninformed speculation.
*edit to add: the OP talks about 30fps - this is just utterly irrelevant for a still image
The average bullet velocity of an AR15 is 3000 ft/s.
It is completely relevant, because that picture was almost certainly not taken by "click". The odds of capturing that on anything but a very high framerate camera (minimum of 10,000 fps) is about the same as winning the lottery. It's not going to happen. But similarly, the odds of getting that on a camera filming at 30fps is equally impossible. The bullet travels 100 ft per frame. You aren't going to get that picture at 30 fps.
The only reasonable assumptions (statistically speaking) are that the person who captured the image was using a high speed camera, or the image was a fake. The only possible "third option" is lottery winning luck...
...of which quite a bit of that was required for that day to have been as it appears.
On an unrelated note, the lottery is rigged, so there isn't really any such thing as "lottery winning luck."
I agree, having covered this aspect in a different thread here. My current thought is that what is seen is the trail of blood and tissue from Trump's ear. The bullet may be out of the scene to the right.
In all this, regardless of the speed of the shutter, there is the problem of how the photographer (or camera) knew when to open the shutter. Knowing "something is going to happen" is worthless if the timing must be to the millisecond or better.
Not sure, but I think I've heard somewhere that some cameras are set to take several pictures AFTER the button is pressed to help account for things like shut eyes or to help capture better moments than in initial button press?
Yes. That is certainly a thing you can do. It's called Burst mode. But it suffers the same framerate problem as a regular continuous camera. Most Burst modes are in the 10 fps range or so. Some go as high as 60 fps. I don't think there are any "high speed" burst mode cameras, because that would be kinda pointless. You want a lower framerate because reality doesn't usually move fast enough to get a meaningfully different picture 1/10,000th of a second later.
Unless of course, you are trying to take a picture of a bullet, in which case you would just use a regular high speed camera, or fake the picture.
And so what?
Your ignorance is showing. Look up what "rolling shutter" is. A speeding bullet can absolutely be photographed at this speed albeit a lucky snap. Given the number of bullets being fired and the abundance of photogs in the area I would be more suspicious if a bullet DIDN'T show up on a photo. All professional cameras and most semi-pro camera are capable of doing this.
Go and check out what the Sony A9iii can do and that isnt even the flagship model.
You're going down a habbit hole that leads absolutely nowhere. Feel free to be distracted and waste your time, I'm not.
Why begin with an ad hominem? Does it add anything to the conversation?
As I said, lottery winning luck. A rolling shutter doesn't change the odds of capturing that perfect image. There are maybe 5 ft of photographic space where such an image could have been taken. Really, there is less, because the drama is substantially decreased if the bullet is further away in the image, or it is behind his head. So, being generous, 3000/5 = 600. So a 1 in 600 chance of capturing that image, assuming the person was taking photos once per second on a continual basis (which is itself HIGHLY unlikely).
There was ONE BULLET that went near Trumps head. One single bullet. Watch the film, that information is obvious. That particular bullet in the photo was also the first register, so, given that the bullet velocity is 3000 fps and the speed of sound is less than 1200fps, the decision to take that picture would have had to have happened BEFORE the first shot was fired.
Lucky shot indeed.
And yet, it was provided by the same person who was front and center for 9/11. What are the odds?
Even still, it was at best a 1 in 600 shot (I think I'm being very generous there). Did > 600 people simultaneously decide to take a close up picture of Trump at the highest shutter speed, on their professional quality camera, during the second before the first shot was fired?
Well, I don't have the A9, but I do have an A7. I probably average 200 pictures per week on it. I have some idea what I can do with the camera. Assuming ignorance, without actually addressing the argument being made is not a good rebuttal.
You are welcome to try again.
NY times wasn't it?
On here yesterday someone cited that it was the same photographer that took the picture of Bush in the classroom on 911 when He was told of what happened. 🤔
That was the guy that took the fight picture. I'm not sure if he took both though.
Doug Mills took the bullet picture. Same guy.
Doug Mills….I saw this post here last night….Interesting he was with Bush for the other picture…..
https://greatawakening.win/p/17teNpv7T8/doug-mills--deepstate-photograph/c/
Mills is his name, I believe. He shot the pic of Bush Jr when he was told the twin towers were attacked.
Someone read the Miles Mathis paper which made this point days ago. I don't 100% agree with Mathis on his conclusion, but at least give credit where it is due.
https://mileswmathis.com/crooks.pdf
Yeah that dude wears a tin foil hat. I could only make it halfway through that rambling ignorant piece.
There are at least 2 different narratives running here. Why?
Not a photographer. But don’t they regularly film in continuous so they can lift individual frames… or burst so as to have before and after shots in case of closed eyes etc?
"30fps" would imply continuous, that is, video.
That's true. You wouldn't normally have that fast of a shutter though. That would be deliberate.
I should add that there are a lot of factors that go into capturing that type of image. Some assumptions are being made about exposure times that might not be 100% accurate.
doesn't make sense to me because I though Trump had his own personal bodyguard's as well, because in the Q posts it mentioned years ago they did not trust SS, because of what happened to Don Jr back in the day. so if that is the case he put his own life at risk so that he could catch these guys in the act
Appears so. But this was just insane level of risk.
agreed if this is true Trump had to have left his life in the Lord Himselfs hands. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, unless Im way off
Knowing Trump is deep state most wanted if I looked out and saw no protectors on the rooves or on the watertower I would have told someone or no gone out
How much would the ear have slowed it?
Still no reason to photo a speaking person with that rate.
With Trumps energy it probably exited faster than it entered...
Conservation of energy means that anything that comes within a very specific radius of Trump loses its brakes and connection to gravity and drag.
Unless you have been told something is going to happen that would need those camera settings, ya' think?
As a long-time digital photographer, I feel compelled to chime in here. Today's modern digital cameras have some amazing technology built right into the camera's internal processors that control all those many functions. Most days I will set the camera's shutter speed to "auto", and pick an f-stop to set my anticipated "depth of field" to give me control over what will be in focus when the finished image is captured and processed within the camera. Other times I will set the shutter speed and let the camera's internal processors determine the lens opening (f-stop). Beyond that, modern lenses for digital cameras have their own tiny microprocessors built in so the lens can communicate with the camera body to help eliminate shake and vibrations. These lenses are not inexpensive, but they can actually work very well to give the photographer greater creative choices. Much of that equation depends on the photog's assignment - what he or she envisions the challenges they might encounter. My camera settings will vary accordingly - a posed fashion model vs a fighter jet zooming by at 400 mph, for example. I've done high fashion, air shows, public events, and wildlife in the field. The human behind the lens makes some of those calculations, but the camera itself contributes much to the creative process these days. Just my $0.02 - worth exactly what you paid for it.
I'm not sure what you're implying and I'm not going to assume. But I too shoot almost exclusively in aperture priority (non-photo people: I pick the F stop, camera decides shutter speed, same as guy above)
It's extremely rare for cameras (of any brand and model) to pick 1/8000, even on a bright sunny day unless ISO is bumped up high (by the photographer). And if ISO was set to "auto", the chances of 1/8000 being selected is as good as zero because the camera is going to lower ISO first to something like 100, 125 or 160 (as low as it'll go on most cameras) before it increases shutter speed.
And there's no reason to bump up ISO when conditions are brightly lit unless you explicitly want to increase shutter speed. Any photographer worth squat is going to lower ISO on a sunny day because even with ISO 100, the shutter speed is going to be something like 1/1000 to 1/2000 anyway which is fast enough to capture all sorts of moving subjects including race cars.
What I'm trying to say is, getting the shutter speed up to 1/8000 was a deliberate choice made by the photographer who took the Trump shot. And just like the OP X post, I'd ask "Why?" unless he was expecting something very fast moving to happen.
Typically, the higher the ISO, the higher the noise - that will be true within any closed system. Quality optics and imagers with large cells and high quantum efficiency will allow shorter exposure times with the same ISO.
In any case, you are correct. A typical high end camera system will pick ISO's that favor picture quality. A photographer will pick settings for the moment.
On a side note, many moons back I had a project where they wanted to know if we could image a fast moving object (on industrial equipment) and I was able to get to an effective shutter speed of 1/2000000. The camera couldn't do it - that required specialized lighting. Jitter in the system required a camera shutter of around 1/20000.
I'm so old I still remember the day I traded in my pterodactyl chisel box for a canon 35mm.
LOL. I worked with digital cameras before they hit the consumer market.
Edit - maybe I should qualify that statement. VCR video cameras were all the rage then, so technically....not quite true.
When I worked on my PhD, digital cameras were first hitting the scene (I used conventional B&W film). I looked into converting my equipment to digital. At the time I believe Canon was selling an 8 megapixel digital camera for about $8,000. The conventional B&W film was equivalent to about 34 megapixels (resolution of about 5 microns). I just checked and 400 megapixel digital cameras are out there, if you want to pay around $8,000 :) Pretty interesting that state of the art digital cameras cost about the same as almost 30 years ago, but with 50x the resolution.
$8K for a camera - I've spent more than that on a single lens. Fortunately, it was the company's money.
Times have changed a lot over the last 30-40 years.
If I had to wager a guess, this guy is spouting some bullshit and knows nothing about professional photography.
Bet big.
With real bullets and people were killed...and the President was almost killed...
Digital camera. He probably set the aperture and the camera chose the shutter speed. Common way to shoots events.
My cameras are able to take pictures before pressning the shutter, I have only used this on a few occasions to capture cannons shooting a salute.
If I remember correctly, you have to use a special setting and then half press. The camera start taking pictures at a fast pace without saving them. When the action takes place you press fully and you’ll have pictures from a few seconds back before you reacted.
It’s really cool and gives you a much bigger success rate. If his Sony camera have this feature, I don’t know.
I bet there is one at every presidential event since Reagan.
Intentionally trying to capture something happening very fast
Since there's lots of conjecture about real / shopped, how did the source determine 1/8000? Is there meta data on the image? I'd assume if they pulled the image from some website, it likely would have been resized before posting for site optimization.
Names & addresses, names & addresses.
Find him, name him, identify him, ask - beat it out of him - why the fuck his camera was configured like this.
If a "high speed even setup" is present, then it's a huge smoking gun.