3000 dollar film

Photo Engineer · Jul 30, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
U2's and SR-71's? [*]

Child's play.

At least those were platforms that could land with the film on board. Consider the early U.S. reconnaissance ('spy') satellites which contained about 16000 feet of 70mm film. The film would be jettisoned from orbit in a drop bucket, to be captured in mid air or in the sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)

Despite about a year and a half to two years of various failures, I consider these missions to be an overall success.

[*] originally RS-71, but LBJ swapped the letters while talking about it when he shouldn't've been.

We used BIMAT film which had a monobath, donor and receiver aboard the satellite. The images were scanned and sent back to earth.

The film and process were developed by a large team with Grant Haist being a contributor.

PE

fotch · Jul 30, 2015

fdonadio said:
If only that roll was 10" wide! One could cut 660 8x10" sheets from it, with no waste at all, at a cost of $4.24 per sheet. For comparison, Freestyle sells a 10-sheet box of Portra 160 for $172.79 ($17.28 per sheet).

Sent with Tapatalk. Please, forgive autocorrect and my fat fingers.

I wonder if you could adapt or modify a film holder to work with the 9.5" size? Big cost difference.

fdonadio · Jul 30, 2015

fotch said:
I wonder if you could adapt or modify a film holder to work with the 9.5" size? Big cost difference.

I don't think it would be wise to adapt the holder(s), but maybe the film. Like adding a paper tab that makes the sheet 0.5" longer, just so the sheet doesn't move inside the holder.

It would be the easiest way.

Well... With the right tools (like a slitter), knowledge and time, one can use this roll as a "micro jumbo roll" and cut to smaller formats!

For instance, one could slit the roll 7" wide and cut to 5x7". Then, trim the remaining 2.5" wide roll to 2.4" and have 120/220 film ready to spool!

Or slit the roll 8" wide and cut to 8x10". Then, trim the remaining 1.5" to 1.4", perforate it and have some 135 film!

Or just buy film in the desired format!

Cheers,
Flavio

Sent with Tapatalk. Please, forgive autocorrect and my fat fingers.

EdSawyer · Jul 31, 2015

Remember there is no integral orange mask on this film, so it would be more challenging to print in a darkroom as a result.

frobozz · Jul 31, 2015

Before you go hacking it up into large sheet film sizes, keep in mind it has a 3.9 mil base thickness, not the 7 mil that most sheet films have.

Duncan

DREW WILEY · Jul 31, 2015

Why do you think most commercial enlargers were mfg 10x10 instead of 8x10? And as far as aerial survelliance being obsolete now that
satellites are the norm - well, there are still things big aerial film does far better. The analysis of satellite images is cumbersome. It often
needs highly trained analysts, and they need to know exactly where to look. For example, understanding basic landforms is far easier using
traditional high-resolution film shots than Google Earth. Stereo shots are even easier. I know some of you will argue with this, but this is a
field I am especially familiar with form a geomorphology background. There are also security reasons why outfits like NSa still might prefer
film for certain applications. Not too long ago they sustained a facility where exactly ZERO digital tech was allowed. Why? As a counter-check to anything easily manipulated, and as a way for non-analysts to quickly assess things by common sense vision.

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 31, 2015

I remember as an undergrad working in a university photo lab. I printed some black and white negs off of a roll. There's a special stereo viewer that make the features of the photograph a 3D effect. I was told that this method was used to make topographic maps using photos and a the viewer.

Photo Engineer · Jul 31, 2015

Yes, there is a stereo viewer and a contact printer that runs a roll through in one pass and not individual shots.

There is also a rectification camera and printer that allows for correction between stills for any roll, pitch or yaw. This data is printed on the side of the film and is entered into a dial on the enlarger. The film holder then changes position to adjust for the "error" in the plane.

It is an amazing mapping job.

PE

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 31, 2015

Yes PE. What even more amazing that a 3D photo can be made with a camera with a single lens. Now those Aero Ektar lenses sell for a pretty penny on Ebay.

Photo Engineer · Jul 31, 2015

We had a special Aerial slide rule that helped us in calculations. It had scales in m/h and altitude in thousands, tens of thousands and etc, altitude among other things.

PE

AgX · Jul 31, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
The analysis of satellite images is cumbersome. It often
needs highly trained analysts, and they need to know exactly where to look. For example, understanding basic landforms is far easier using traditional high-resolution film shots than Google Earth. Stereo shots are even easier.

Traditional aerial surveying is going on. But with digital surveying cameras instead. Even a large, brand new aerophoto firm has been established. Installing digital cameras from the beginning.

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 31, 2015

I love it

Photo Engineer said:
We had a special Aerial slide rule that helped us in calculations. It had scales in m/h and altitude in thousands, tens of thousands and etc, altitude among other things.

PE

You have all these great stories from by gone eras of photography. I guess it's an analog calculator

Photo Engineer · Jul 31, 2015

Mainecoonmaniac said:
You have all these great stories from by gone eras of photography. I guess it's an analog calculator

All slide rules are analog! I'll bet you never saw a slide rule.

PE

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 31, 2015

Yes I did!

Photo Engineer said:
All slide rules are analog! I'll bet you never saw a slide rule.

PE

Thanks for thinking I'm a young cat! I'm 53 years old. That was an ego boost since they stopped carding me for booze 25 years ago.

Photo Engineer · Jul 31, 2015

They still card me, as it is the law in NYS regardless of appearnce.

So, have you ever seen an aerial slide rule?

PE

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 31, 2015

Nope.

Photo Engineer said:
They still card me, as it is the law in NYS regardless of appearnce.

So, have you ever seen an aerial slide rule?

PE

So how does an aerial slide rule look like? Bet it doesn't fit in your pocket. Also, you have to use it on an plane while it's in the air. I'm sure the design of the slide rule accommodates for adverse conditions.

Photo Engineer · Jul 31, 2015

Mainecoonmaniac said:
So how does an aerial slide rule look like? Bet it doesn't fit in your pocket. Also, you have to use it on an plane while it's in the air. I'm sure the design of the slide rule accommodates for adverse conditions.

Here it is then (again). Please note the maximum altitude that can be used.

It is about 1 foot long. It did fit in my flight suit.

PE

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 31, 2015

That's cool

Photo Engineer said:
Here it is then (again). Please note the maximum altitude that can be used.

It is about 1 foot long. It did fit in my flight suit.

PE

The slide rule you can use it at 250,000 ft?

Photo Engineer · Jul 31, 2015

I use it as a human being if needed. You use it as anything you wish.

PE

Theo Sulphate · Jul 31, 2015

If a single frame is shot with one lens (i.e not a stereo photo), how was it viewed in 3D?

fdonadio · Aug 1, 2015

EdSawyer said:
Remember there is no integral orange mask on this film, so it would be more challenging to print in a darkroom as a result.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to study a little on that subject.

frobozz said:
Before you go hacking it up into large sheet film sizes, keep in mind it has a 3.9 mil base thickness, not the 7 mil that most sheet films have.

That's a substantial difference, almost half the thickness! Makes me think I had a really stupid idea...

Cheers,
Flavio

Sent with Tapatalk. Please, forgive autocorrect and my fat fingers.

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 1, 2015

I think some one needs to invent an LF camera with a roll back.

AgX · Aug 1, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
If a single frame is shot with one lens (i.e not a stereo photo), how was it viewed in 3D?

You photograph with just one lens, but with time delay between exposures and film transport inbetween, resulting in seperated images on the film.
With the flight speed that gives you a huge absolute base-distance (stereo-base), but necesssary for the image scale.

The optical axis is kept parallel during work, and a certain overlap is kept between photographed ground areas. This overlap is the region where a 3-D impression is gained, necessary for photogrammetrical work.

During a survey typically a huge succession of overlapping areas is gained to achieve seamless photogrammetry for a whole terestial region.

Aerial surveying was and still is a very complicated matter.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 1, 2015

AgX said:
You photograph with just one lens, but with time delay between exposures and film transport inbetween, resulting in seperated images on the film.

Ah - ok. For some reason, I fooled myself into thinking just a single frame was used.

AgX · Aug 1, 2015

This principle is employed by amateurs too:
sliding one camera on a rod, or even displacing the camera with its tripod. But both means bear the risk of annoying movement of subjects inbetween.

3000 dollar film

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency