Film vs. the Taliban (NYTimes article)

[billbretz]

The venerable old U-2 spy plane still uses the analog stuff, at least partly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/22plane.html?hp

"Marine officers say they relied on photographs from the U-2’s old film cameras, which take panoramic images at such a high resolution they can see insurgent footpaths, while the U-2’s newer digital cameras beamed back frequent updates on 25 spots where the Marines thought they could be vulnerable."

The article is about the plane, not film, but I found that little bit interesting.

Images 9, 10 in the slide show pictures real film being examined.

 

[peri24]

which format is it?

 

[bob100684]

which format is it?

I think I read somewhere its 8"wide rolls or something ridiculous.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The film exposures are 9" x 9" or 9" x 18". It comes in 9" rolls. There is also a 5" equivalent.

There is a roll of MIA pilots on the Area 59 web site under my old unit, the 67th TRW.

PE

 

[JBrunner]

Panatomic X. There is no substitute.

 

[DanielStone]

looked like they souped it in pyro, that greenish-yellow stain.

interesting!

-Dan

 

[railwayman3]

I guess that, having spent time and skill, and no doubt vast amounts of money, perfecting the analogue system, there is no reason to change something which works well just for the sake of it.

I read somewhere that NASA are still using some quite ancient computer parts in operating the Shuttle...weren't they trying to source large floppy discs a year or two ago?

 

[DanielStone]

I remember reading that the Hubble used Pentium 486's or something like that, or slower. So when it went down last year?, they sent up an old computer. Cheaper than making a new system from scratch I guess.

they had IBM make some special for them, since they're so long O.O.D.

-Dan

 

[Photo Engineer]

Some early NASA equipment used Apple computers. You know, the APPLE ][ !

PE

 

[ic-racer]

We will see what the future holds, but I wouldn't be surprised if I see digital photographers in the future seeking and refurbishing old computers with USB ports and CD drives so they can access their image files

 

[lxdude]

I remember reading that the Hubble used Pentium 486's or something like that, or slower. So when it went down last year?, they sent up an old computer. Cheaper than making a new system from scratch I guess.

they had IBM make some special for them, since they're so long O.O.D.

-Dan

Didn't the Pentium follow the 486? Like, Pentium standing for 586?
I know there was a Pentium 4.

 

[E76]

Yes, the Pentium followed the 486, but it would have been the 586. Intel named it the Pentium because it's not possible to trademark a number.

There was no Pentium 486!

 

[Photo Engineer]

4004, 8008, 8088, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium and etc...........

 

[kauffman v36]

anybody really know what film they are using?

 

[C A Sugg]

I'm neither a programmer or engineer, but I recall that the shuttle computers were a little dated when the program started in 1981 -- with commentators chattering about home computers being more powerfull, yada.... Proven physical reliability was key. Anyone here typing on a machine they'd trust to make sure they hit the atmosphere just right -- at Mach 25?

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

From what I know, one of the reasons why NASA used old processors, including on newest Mars rovers, is because their low failure rate. Old processors were using less power, and were less prone to a breackdown. You don't want to screw up a whole mission because of a burned CPU.

I think that Pathfinder had something like a 486 as its CPU. You don't need a lot of computing power upthere, the main calculations are made on Earth and sent to the device that had only to interprete them. Also, there is no need to ruch up things, as there is a rather long delay for the radio waves to get that far.

Hope it make sense...

 

[dbonamo]

If anyone is interested there is a document at cia.gov concerning the U2

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-.../the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/u2.pdf

On page 48 it describes the camera development, apparently there were 2 modified K-38 cameras that had 9.5 wide film. 2 cameras were used to produce a frame 18x18. One camera would run in one direction and the other camera in the opposite direction. This was to minimize the effect on the balance of the plane.

 

[Worker 11811]

I guess that, having spent time and skill, and no doubt vast amounts of money, perfecting the analogue system, there is no reason to change something which works well just for the sake of it.

I absolutely agree!

There is a place for digital photographs and a place for film. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. If you need information fast or you need to be able to transmit it from one place to another quickly, digital is great but if you need quality, use film.

I like digital cameras. I use them all the time but I also know that there is a time and a place for taking quick snapshots and for taking good photos. I often use my digicam along side my real camera to preview or to document scenes I take with the other camera.

It is a fallacy to say that digital should ever replace film. It is the real professional who knows how to use the tools available and who uses whichever tool he thinks will do the best job under the given circumstances.

I think these U-2s are a perfect example. If you've got troops on the ground who would be in harm's way if you don't have information right now, digital images are probably best. But, damn! If they can see a person's footprint in the sand using a film camera, what ELSE can they find out about the enemy?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Older processors ran hotter and drew more current. They also, in some cases, used 3 voltages, +5, +12, and -12V. They were not better but some were more reliable.

As for the films, I have a list somewhere, but it would take me days to look it up. I could probably find the list of EK Aerial films though.

PE

 

[Athiril]

From what I know, one of the reasons why NASA used old processors, including on newest Mars rovers, is because their low failure rate. Old processors were using less power, and were less prone to a breackdown. You don't want to screw up a whole mission because of a burned CPU.

I think that Pathfinder had something like a 486 as its CPU. You don't need a lot of computing power upthere, the main calculations are made on Earth and sent to the device that had only to interprete them. Also, there is no need to ruch up things, as there is a rather long delay for the radio waves to get that far.

Hope it make sense...

+1 486's take a lot of punishment, you didn't even need a heatsink and fan on DX2's and lower.

I'm sure a modern produced processor could take more.


In fact, I onced smoked a 486 (or the socket) by accidentally placing it in the socket in the wrong orientation, it stilled worked after.

Overclocking a DX2 to 100MHz required cooling though or it would eventually crash, I used to take the processor, stick it in the freezer, and then put it in without a HSF when I was a kid and get a good game of Age of Empires out of it before it crashed.

 

[lxdude]

I'm neither a programmer or engineer, but I recall that the shuttle computers were a little dated when the program started in 1981 -- with commentators chattering about home computers being more powerfull, yada.... Proven physical reliability was key. Anyone here typing on a machine they'd trust to make sure they hit the atmosphere just right -- at Mach 25?

There's been more than a few times I've wanted to send one in the other direction at Mach 25!

 

[JBrunner]

anybody really know what film they are using?

There are several films but AFAIK the most common is a Panatomic X variant that has an extended red sensitivity to help see through atmospheric haze.

I was also under the impression that the older processors were used because they could run a simple OS in a more reliable fashion, and NASA leans towards the KISS strategy regarding computers and OS.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The processor used to be the Houston Fearless EH6A.

The rough ride of the booster used to damage disks and reset the computer IIRC.

PE

 

[lxdude]

There are several films but AFAIK the most common is a Panatomic X variant that has an extended red sensitivity to help see through atmospheric haze.

I was also under the impression that the older processors were used because they could run a simple OS in a more reliable fashion, and NASA leans towards the KISS strategy regarding computers and OS.

I spoke a few years back with a guy who is in a position to know about this, an Intel engineer, and he corroborates what you said. He said they get the job done, and the much older manufacturing technology means wider circuit lines with less sensitivity to radiation or physical degradation.

He said it's not a simple matter of sticking a newer computer in the shuttle. Even using backwards compatible chips requires new certification. With everything new, everything would require new certification, which would be very costly and time consuming, would divert engineering talent and would not produce any needed performance increase. It's much cheaper and simpler to keep the old system going.

So what it comes down to is, hardware works and is proven, software works and is proven, don't mess with it.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Operating temperature is another critical factor. My Intel E8400 is supposed to work flawlessly between 5 and 72,5°C. Requirements may demand -40 to 125 °C.