Film vs. the Taliban (NYTimes article)

[Paul van Bavel]

I think these film cameras have a forward movement compensation. This works by transporting the film proportional to the planes speed.
This way it records a long strip of land.
I don't think its easy to do something similar digitally.

I found this with google:
http://www.esrith.com/Support/document/RC30_Brochure.pdf

Paul

 

[Photo Engineer]

Enclosed below is a photo of an Aerial Slide Rule used to calculate film compensation as a function of altitude and aircraft speed. This was a needed item for every aerial photo person in the USAF back when I did it.

I have included in my gallery, a photo of an aircraft, unbuttoned, with a camera and a 36" lens for taking photos.

The cameras also compensated for roll, pitch and yaw by printing this information on the edge of the film. This was dialed into a special rectifying enlarger/printer which then made additional corrections so that a full map could be made with all possible corrections.

PE

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

The German airforce is using only film in their Tornado Jets. It is Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Pan 200, the film is 24 cm wide. If you want to use this film in 35mm or 120 cameras, take Rollei Superpan 200. It is the same film. I am using it for BW slides, very good material. If I remember right, dr5 has recently recommended this film here on apug for his special reversal process as one of the best films.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[kauffman v36]

isnt panatomic x discontinued? thats why im asking what film they are using. basically, my ultimate goal is, is there any way to get your hands on some of that film today

 

[E76]

isnt panatomic x discontinued? thats why im asking what film they are using. basically, my ultimate goal is, is there any way to get your hands on some of that film today

Kodak still manufactures a number of films for aerial photography, including Panatomic-X.

 

[kauffman v36]

ahhh thank you very much.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I've read the computers in the Voyager spacecraft where built in 1970 and the designs had to be tested with long-term environmental conditions (i.e. very cold) and it took literally years for the testing. So by the time they were launched in 1977, the computers were nearly a decade old.

For the shuttle, it had 5 IBM AP-101s computers - derived from the old IBM 360 mainframes which are radiation hardened. THey were called "System 4/Pi" as 360 is 4 Pi in steradians.

They were used not only in the shuttle, but Skylab, B-52s, and F-15s. 4 had identical software and 3 of them ran the same data redundantly with the 4th one as a backup. As they ran, the 3 would stop more than 500 times a second and compare results and make sure that all 2 had the same results. If there was a discrepency between the 3 computers, i.e. one did not agree with the other 2, the one with the odd results would dump it's results and sync itself with the other 3. The 5th computer ran a set of software that was independantly written from the other 4 computers, and it compares results with the others to make sure there is nothing wrong with the programming of the software.

Also, the shuttle software runs within 1 meg of magnetic core memory.

 

[lxdude]

I've read the computers in the Voyager spacecraft where built in 1970 and the designs had to be tested with long-term environmental conditions (i.e. very cold) and it took literally years for the testing. So by the time they were launched in 1977, the computers were nearly a decade old.

And they're still functioning.

 

[mgb74]

Many years ago I worked at a systems engineering firm that focused heavily on shipboard computers. Because of the lifecycle of the underlying platform (ship, plane), the level of integration, and the testing required, computers always tended to be "behind" the technology curve. Introducing new technology creates a lot of variables.