Wow, those pictures are neat when you consider the camera needs to store 64 of them per second. They look a bit grainy, but that's probably because they weren't meant to be stills.
It is interesting to see such a massive deluge come out of a relatively small tube.
Looking at that picture of the "rope" of droplets, I'm curious as to how larger and smaller streams would look using frames from your new videocamera. That may prove how important it is to use large nozzles.
Perhaps I should have explained better. My 16mm camera can do 64 FPS, but it is a film camera, so that's not particularly amazing. This camera was a digital camera that could do 30 progressive frames per second. My old one could do 15 progressive frames per second.
I'd like to try some smaller nozzles too to see how much they break up. ZOCCOZ's stream shots always showed so many droplets and the streams always looked so detailed, so I'd imagine we'd see something similar.
Refresh my memory, but how much water does the Supercannon II have available for firing before its pressure drops significantly?
Also, what was the make and model of the camera you were using to take the video? I'm curious since I'm considering acquiring a new camera one of these days and have considered getting a video camera as well.
How much water is available depends on the pressure, piston location, and which nozzle is used. We did a 20 PSI shot yesterday to make some graphs (which I've attached). The 20 PSI shot didn't move the piston down the entire length of the gun, so about a liter of water was left that we measured out of the nozzle. We kept the air to water ratio (piston location) constant throughout the tests at about 1:1.
Most of the time about 600 to 650 mL we not shot out and we put 3500 mL in each time, which might not be enough to fill the entire chamber with a 1:1 air to water ratio, but it was consistent nonetheless.
The shots are usually so quick that only the last 5 to 10% of the water has reduced range, as demonstrated in the "jump rope" shot. I'd estimate at least 2.5 to 2.7 liters are available at good pressure. Look at the graphs too. The pressure doesn't matter too much because we could get excellent performance from 60 PSI and up, and while not as excellent at lower pressures, 20 PSI still achieved 45 feet, which is great to begin with.
I should note however that those shots were not ideal because there was a cross wind, but I figure it's just the trend we're looking for, so that's all we did. Also, we only did one trial except on the 40 PSI shot (27.5 PSI average) because the first one was affected by wind too much.
As for the camera, this isn't a video camera. It's a few years old Olympus SP-320 my father has. I have a good variety of cameras available to me I suppose. I think any of the higher end digital cameras should have a decent video option. However, note that the Olympus SP-320 doesn't have any audio capabilities, at least from what I can tell.
The closest thing I have to a video camera is a 50+ year old 16mm film camera, the Kodak K-100. It's a good, cheap, basic 16mm camera, but because it uses film it is expensive to operate. Of course, the camera itself cost me less than $100 with 3 great lenses too, so compared against any decent video camera, it's actually cheaper for many hundred feet of film, and will turn out higher quality results than most cheap digital video cameras.
The "skipping rope" shot looks funky and rather whimsical.