Will it ever be possible to use a high enough speed 'camera' to film light leaving a source?
No, because light is only detected when it actually hits a detector. Speed is irrelevant.
What else than light, is a camera filming ?
Actually a camera IS a detector for light.
Do you mean high enough speed as in the "speed" of a camera? That is, how quickly the picture taking action is?
And actually yah, as russ said, it's irrelevant, the light has to hit the detector/film before it can be detected.
I believe you may be able to see a pulse if the laser light is directed away from you and is scattered off dust...but I'm not sure what you'd see since the laser would move as much forward as the scattered light moved towards you at the same time. My guess is that you can't make a shutter move fast enough to resolve anything like this (even at 10,000fps, the light pulse would move 30km between each frame).
So don't use a shutter... Or perhaps more to the point: what activates the shutter - a light sensor...?
Here, a shutter time of some weeks would be enough for a sharp picture. Size does matter.
Yes, since they are very very far away and produce very large shockwaves, we can see this using slow shutter speed since even though the light has moved millions of km in the time between pictures, millions of km on that scale isn't too large. I thought the OP wanted to see something like a laser shooting out of a laser pointer though...
Thanks. I was originally thinking of a sphere of light leaving a light bulb. I guess if it was dark and the air was full of dust and you could get that many frames. :\
I understand a bit better now.
I think I need to drop the seeing is believing when it comes to light and stop imagining filming it travelling for it to still be so.
Separate names with a comma.