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. 🤔
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.