what to take to Europe
benn...@clt.dec
-----
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but I thought that the
KIRON 28-85 and the VIVITAR 28-85 were essentially the same lens. I've
taken the KIRON on several trips with good results. I find, however,
that I use it almost exclusively at one of three settings (approximately)
: 28mm, 55mm, 85mm. Having noticed this, I am switching to using fixed
length lenses
- Vick Bennison
hage...@friday.dec
x
I think that before going on a vacation, you need to decide
whether it is to be a "photography" vacation or a "vacation" vacation.
If you are going to Europe (or anywhere else) with the idea of
primarily taking pictures, then you can justify the effort of
taking all your lenses, tripods, bodies, etc. But for a regular
vacation where you just want to come back with some good pictures,
I agree with the idea of taking just one lens.
I would choose a fast normal lens instead of a zoom, because I want
to take existing light pictures in museums, but that is a personal
prejudice. On my last trip to France I took two lenses, a normal
and a medium telephoto, but almost never used the telephoto and spent
a lot of time worrying about whether it was being stolen while I was
out of the hotel room.
For film, I would buy all my film here. Take lots and bring the extra
back--you can always use it later. Decide in advance on one film
and stick to it. I would say either Kodachrome 64 or Kodacolor 100.
I was in an airplane once with a guy who was taking
pictures out the window (which is usually a waste of time anyway),
and doing the "rewind the film when you're only half done and change
to another speed for some unknown reason" routine. It was pitiful.
Although the original question was in reference to Spain where this
doesn't apply so much, if you're from the Western U.S. you probably
don't have much experience in shooting in the rain. In Europe
(and in the Eastern U.S.) it rains a lot. Take pictures anyway--
they will turn out better than you expect. (I guess because the contrast
is lower?) Don't let a rainy European vacation stop you from
coming back with pictures.
J. Eric Roskos
> is usually a waste of time anyway) ...
This made me think of a question I have been wondering about for about a
month. About a month ago, I went to see the "The Dream is Alive" movie
which has the pictures taken from the Space Shuttle, and it made me curious
what kind of film the astronauts use to photograph the earth.
If you're just in a commercial airplane and you photograph the ground,
the pictures don't usually come out very well, because the haze in the air
even at that altitude badly reduces the contrast. This made me wonder
whether the photos made from the Space Shuttle, which have to go through
far more atmosphere than that, use a special film?
Actually another thing also made me wonder this, viz., the films made with
the IMAX camera of the satellites coming out of the cargo bay, as well as
a number of the other "space" pictures, seem to have unusually high color
saturation; it resembles the Vericolor Commercial Film that's used to
photograph cars and food and the like to make them look more appealing in
advertisements. Also, the astronauts seemed to have unusually exaggerated
skin color in some of the segments, which also is a characteristic of that
type of film. I assume the IMAX film is some specially-made film, but
since they also use a Hasselblad (which they even show them using at one
place in the film) I hoped they might at least be using some familiar kind
of film there... does anybody know what they use?
--
UUCP: Ofc: j...@peora.UUCP Home: j...@jerpc.CCUR.UUCP CCUR DNS: peora, pesnta
US Mail: MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company)
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
Ed Falk
> the pictures don't usually come out very well, because the haze in the air
> even at that altitude badly reduces the contrast. This made me wonder
Pictures taken out of airplane windows are crummy for two reasons, neither of
which has much to do with the atmosphere. First, most commercial airplanes
are taking off/landing from polluted areas. Second, the plexiglass used in
airplane windows is really bad for photography. I'm not sure, but I think it
has something to do with the weird filtering effects of plexiglass combined
with the fact that human eyes and film respond to different frequencies of light
Professional aerial photographers use special windows in their airplanes made of
optical glass. I myself prefer to open the window of my plane when taking
pictures and just stick the camera out.
ed falk
sun microsystems
John Hofbauer
> since they also use a Hasselblad (which they even show them using at one
> place in the film) I hoped they might at least be using some familiar kind
> of film there... does anybody know what they use?
The IMAX camera uses conventional 70mm film which runs through the
camera horizontally. This produces a negative twice as large as if
run vertically as is done in normal movie cameras, assuming the same
aspect ratio. I don't know precisely which type of film they used
but special AERO versions of regular films are made for aerial
photography. These are formulated to help reduce atmospheric haze,
etc. Perhaps one of these where used. But then there is no haze, nor
atmosphere for that matter, 200 miles out so that might not be a
worry. On a related matter, I don't recall the 'blads being loaded
with any kind of special film, even on the moon missions, except that
the base was especially thin, so more frames could be cramed in the
magazines. Any peculiar images may be due to the quality of the
release prints.
Gregory Smith
>> If you're just in a commercial airplane and you photograph the ground,
>> the pictures don't usually come out very well, because the haze in the air
>> even at that altitude badly reduces the contrast. This made me wonder
> Pictures taken out of airplane windows are crummy for two reasons, neither of
>which has much to do with the atmosphere. First, most commercial airplanes
>are taking off/landing from polluted areas. Second, the plexiglass used in
>airplane windows is really bad for photography. I'm not sure, but I think it
>has something to do with the weird filtering effects of plexiglass combined
>with the fact that human eyes and film respond to different frequencies of
I think the problem only exists when the sun is shining on your window. The
plexiglas is always covered with many tiny scratches, which will scatter
sunlight all over, including into your lens, even if the sun is not
visible through the window. The effect is to 'haze up' the picture.
On an overcast day, the window is receiving large amounts of scattered
light and then rescattering it all over the inside of the plane, giving the
same result. You only want the light rising from the ground, of course.
I have taken pictures of the mountains near LA airport and obtained
fairly decent results. The weather was sunny and my window was on the
shady side. I think that's the only way it works.
As for serious aerial photography ( which was mentioned in the quoted article )
I think that shooting downward through a hood designed to shade the camera
from all skylight would solve many ills.
Of course, the airline passenger has no such option. =->
Greg Smith
University of Toronto
Brian Diehm
>since they also use a Hasselblad (which they even show them using at one
>place in the film) I hoped they might at least be using some familiar kind
>of film there... does anybody know what they use?
I distinctly remember when visiting the Air & Space Museum in January (yes, I
also saw "The Dream Is Alive" - fortunately while all the astronauts themselves
were still alive) that there was a flyer that showed the format size used in
IMAX as opposed to 70mm and 35mm movie formats. Now I'm not going to insist
that I'm right, but I recall thinking that there was NO WAY that format would
fit a Hasselblad. Also, the Hasselblad couldn't be being used for moving
pictures, could it? I believed the Hasselblad they showed being used was one
of many different still cameras generally carried on all missions and used
freely for anything and everything, as well as specific planned shots.
IMAX is a HUGE format, and the resolution of the medium is tremendous. If you
are a large-format fan because of resolution and lack of grain, DEFINITELY see
what this format can do - it will make you a believer in movie quality.
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.
P.S. - "The Dream Is Alive" was a good enough show that when one month later the
Challenger disaster happened, I realized that the movie had made me feel
closer to the people, and the cause, and that therefore my grief was
greater. You gain and you lose, I guess . . .
suke...@ccnysci.uucp
>pictures and just stick the camera out.
>
reason, the stewardess started struggling with me when I opened
the window on the DC-10 :-)
Taking cloud formations through the window comes out good,though.
I guess since the subject is soft and not well defined to begin
with, distortion from the window isn't noticable. Colors come
out good also (blue, blue, blue, violet, gray, white, black - oh well
those are colors, I guess)
Simon Shapiro
> > type of film. I assume the IMAX film is some specially-made film, but
> > since they also use a Hasselblad (which they even show them using at one
that the 120/220 film does. It comes in a long roll (up to 30ft), the
film is (what Kodak calls) Estar (tm) base (tough polyester), and the
camera's cavity is slightly pressurized (to keep film flat). If you shoot
down to earth and want a GOOD picture you use arial film. For in-cain or
short distance photography this film is too slow and contrasty, you use
anything else.
klu...@gitpyr.uucp
>the IMAX camera of the satellites coming out of the cargo bay, as well as
>a number of the other "space" pictures, seem to have unusually high color
>saturation; it resembles the Vericolor Commercial Film that's used to
>photograph cars and food and the like to make them look more appealing in
>advertisements. Also, the astronauts seemed to have unusually exaggerated
>skin color in some of the segments, which also is a characteristic of that
>type of film. I assume the IMAX film is some specially-made film, but
>since they also use a Hasselblad (which they even show them using at one
>place in the film) I hoped they might at least be using some familiar kind
>of film there... does anybody know what they use?
Most aerial films have a very high saturation to overcome haze and
fog... I think Kodak used to have something called SO-411 which was an
excellent example. Another good example is a Kodak photomicrographic film
(not a special order), which is (or was) an E-4 film at 6 ASA which
offered extreme contrast and saturation. Actually, you can get pretty
good aerial results with K-64.
The main reason is that light up there has not been diffused by the
atmosphere and is much more directional, which seriously increases
the contrast. When combined with relatively high-contrast film,
you get great results.
(from a former aerial photographer)
-------
Disclaimer: Everything I say is probably a trademark of someone. But
don't worry, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
Scott Dorsey
ICS Programming Lab, Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge
Dave Hsu
>
>-Brian Diehm
>Tektronix, Inc.
>
> Challenger disaster happened, I realized that the movie had made me feel
> closer to the people, and the cause, and that therefore my grief was
> greater. You gain and you lose, I guess . . .
Perhaps this is so because the late Dr. Judith Resnick appeared in much of the
footage from that film. Having not visited NASM for a while, does anybody know
if the film is still being shown?
-dave
--
David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department
<disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
h...@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu
"Godzilla has been spotted in Sector 5!"
Eugene Miya
They use all kinds: K25, K64, and special purpose films of the
type that spectrograms use, various B&W. Most every type of camera
is also used from Instamatics (personnal affects), Nikons, to
special purpose.
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
eug...@ames-nas.ARPA
Lyle McElhaney
> footage from that film. Having not visited NASM for a while, does anybody know
> if the film is still being shown?
>
Natural History Museum, to record crowds, I'm told...
Lyle McElhaney
...hao!cisden!lmc
John Hofbauer
> pictures, could it?
Sure it could. Film is film is film. The 35mm film you use in your
favourite SLR is fundamentally the same as used in making feature
films. There are even mail order companies which repackage movie
film for use in still cameras. They advertise it my its code number:
5257, or some such number. It was because of the availability of
35mm movie film that Oskar Barnack built a small still camera around
it back in 1913. You might have heard of it. It was (and still is)
called the LEICA. To get a bigger negative, he doubled the standard
24 x 18 mm movie frame to make it 24 x 36 mm. This was reasonable
because film travels vertically through a movie camera and horizontally
through a still camera. So if you adapt a still camera to produce
frames of 24 x 18 mm with the proper spacing between them and then
run the film through a projector you can't tell the difference. This
is, of course, how animation and special effects are done.
The idea of having movie film travel horizontally through a movie
camera has been re-invented a couple of times. In the 1950's
Paramount had a process called VistaVision. This was a widescreen
process in which 35mm film travelled through the movie camera
horizontally thereby producing a larger negative since the shorter
image "height" dimension was the 24mm between the sprocket holes.
IMAX uses the same technique but has stepped up to 70mm film.
Naturally this produces a larger frame than standard vertical
travelling 70mm film. Given the same size viewing screen, the
larger the frame the clearer the image because less enlargement
is needed.
Dave Martindale
>> fit a Hasselblad. Also, the Hasselblad couldn't be being used for moving
>> pictures, could it?
>
>Sure it could. Film is film is film. The 35mm film you use in your
>favourite SLR is fundamentally the same as used in making feature
>films. There are even mail order companies which repackage movie
>film for use in still cameras. They advertise it my its code number:
>5257, or some such number.
Second things first: It's 5247, and very commonly used in motion picture
work, and *not recommended* (by Kodak) for amateur use. In the first
place, it is designed to be properly colour-balanced when exposed for 1/50
second, with little attempt to make it work properly at long exposure times,
since you generally don't get long exposures in movie filming, even in
animation. Also, its density-vs-exposure function is very linear but
shorter than that of amateur films, giving less exposure latitude.
And no, a Hasselblad couldn't be used for moving pictures. It certainly
couldn't be run at 24 frames per second, normal filming speed, and what
would have been used in most IMAX filming in space. It couldn't even
be used for single-frame animation work, since it has no method for
accurately registering the film from frame to frame. Real movie cameras
all strive to register the film accurately, to minimize jitter on the
screen. Many use registration pins that fit into the sprocket holes
of the film.
IMAX cameras pay particular attention to registration, since part of the
impact of IMAX depends on very good stability on the screen. The camera
has *four* registration pins. A spring-loaded metal bar presses on one
side of the film, forcing its other side against a fixed metal bar.
Finally, the pressure plate behind the film has a vacuum applied to it to
hold the film flat during exposure. The projector also uses registration
pins, but I haven't had a good look at one so I can't comment further.
The acceptable frame-to-frame registration tolerance for the IMAX format
is apparently .0004 inches.
There are similarities though. IMAX cameras use Hasselblad lenses.
The IMAX frame is about 2.2 x 2.77 inches, similar to a Hasselblad
(and three times the size of normal theatrical 70mm).
John Hofbauer
> work, and *not recommended* (by Kodak) for amateur use. In the first
I wasn't recommending the use of 5247 for still photography. I just
wanted to point out that so-called movie film will quite happily
run through a still camera.
>
> would have been used in most IMAX filming in space. It couldn't even
> be used for single-frame animation work, since it has no method for
> accurately registering the film from frame to frame. Real movie cameras
>
Any camera could be used for single-frame animation *IF* the registration
problem can be solved. I recall a NIKON F3 was used to do some of the
special effects in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM. The problem
of registration might be harder to solve on a 'blad, but in principle
it could be done.
J. Eric Roskos
> on whether or not the astronauts used a Hasselblad to film IMAX movies...]
Well, folks, I am a little surprised at this long debate, because when I
posted the original "what kind of film" question (<19...@peora.UUCP>), I
*knew* the astronauts didn't film the IMAX movies with a Hasselblad! The
first followup posting (<22...@utcsri.UUCP>) which said I was "wrong"
because the Hasselblad was a still camera was right about the facts, but
wrong about what I had originally asked! I said, "I know the IMAX camera
uses some kind of less-familiar film [70mm], but they also make still
photos with a Hasselblad, which uses ordinary 120 film, (which *is* much
more familiar) so I wondered if anybody knew what they used in the
Hasselblads."
Eugene Miya at NASA eventually wrote (as did a number of others) to say
that they used a wide variety of films, including Kodachrome, as well as a
variety of special-purpose films for aerial photography. Several people
also wrote to point out that the light in space is essentially from a
point source, which would tend to increase the apparent contrast (and also
the effects of fine surface features of the things being photographed)
because the shadows are not filled in by the diffuse light from the sky,
increasing the contrast between the lighted and shadowed parts.
(So I guess things really *do* look better in space... imagine someday
when they fly a Ford Taurus up there to do a commercial... :-) (well,
it will certainly be better than hearing "NOW, there's an AMERICAN car..."
for the 1e10th time...))
--
UUCP: Ofc: j...@peora.UUCP Home: j...@jerpc.CCUR.UUCP CCUR DNS: peora, pesnta
US Mail: MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company)
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 LOTD(6)=B
----------------------
Amusing error message explaining reason for some returned mail recently:
> 554 xxxxxx.xxxxxx.ATT.UUCP!xxx... Unknown domain address: Not a typewriter
(The above message is true... only the names have been changed...)
Dave Martindale
>
>problem can be solved. I recall a NIKON F3 was used to do some of the
>special effects in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM. The problem
>of registration might be harder to solve on a 'blad, but in principle
>it could be done.
True in theory, but probably pretty difficult in practice. Movie
cameras either have moving registration pins that insert into the film
moving along a fixed path (the Mitchell movement), or fixed
registration pins and a movement that lifts the film away from the
pins, moves it, and presses it back onto the pins (the Bell and Howell
movement). Adding a moving registration pin to a still camera would be
a major piece of engineering, made worse on the Hasselblad because it
wasn't built to use sprocketed film in the first place. Adding a
B&H-type movement would probably require replacing much of the film
path no matter what you started with.
Do you know anything about how the Nikon was modified?
Anyway, my original comments were about a stock Hasselblad, not what
you might be able to do by modifying it.
(I've deleted net.columbia from the newsgroup list, since this no longer
seems relevant to the shuttle.)
Dave Martindale
Brian Diehm
>
>posted the original "what kind of film" question (<19...@peora.UUCP>), I
>*knew* the astronauts didn't film the IMAX movies with a Hasselblad!
Well, I fess up. I'm the one who misread your original posting and read it to
mean you thought that the Hassleblad was being used for the IMAX movies. I
don't have your original posting to see what it was that gave me that impres-
sion, but I remember that something made me think you were of that opinion.
My aplogies. But hasn't it been a lovely discussion?
Ahem. I'm SO embarassed! I just can't take me ANYWHERE!
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.
Doug Wong
>In article <22...@utcsri.UUCP> hofb...@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) writes:
>>
>>Any camera could be used for single-frame animation *IF* the registration
>>problem can be solved. I recall a NIKON F3 was used to do some of the
>>special effects in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM. The problem
>>of registration might be harder to solve on a 'blad, but in principle
>>it could be done.
>
>True in theory, but probably pretty difficult in practice.
>
As a matter of fact I do. Precise film registration is also required for
some multi-image slide shows (i.e. projecting slides where the images
from multiple projectors must overlap exactly), and for other applications.
The following info is from "Nikon World", Vol. 14, No. 1, June 1981.
Please note that I have no connection with any of the companies mentioned,
and have never used the described products.
* Two Firms Offer Pin-Registered Nikons
*
* It is widely known that Nikon is a favorite camera for photojounalists,
* deep-sea divers, and astronauts. But did you know that Nikon is the 35mm of
* choice for graphic artists, map makers, and animators?
* It's true, and two companies, Oxberry Inc and Maximilian Kerr Assoc.,
* are marketing specially modified pin-registered Nikon systems that meet the
* demands of the most discriminating multi-image photographer.
* Oxberry's "Pro Copy Camera System" features a modified Nikon F2 camera
* body, with MD-3 motor drive, electronic pin-registered camera back, AC/DC
* power supply, 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens, and field guide. Oxberry claims to
* make 14 modifications to the Nikon F2 body resulting in a Pro Copy Camera
* "which will always advance to the correct position and stay in register
* exposure after exposure, even when you wind back and advance through a
* second, third, or tenth series."
* The big news about Maximillian Kerr's "Pin Registered SS-F3 Camera
* System" is a new 3-pin configuration. Kerr claims an accuracy of
* +- 0.0001 "with moveable pins and pin-registration as close as 0.093"
* from optical center. Other SS-F3 features include an improved Slide-magic
* Optical Grid (focusing screen), fast film rollback, forward and backwinding
* film counter, and provisions for Rotoscope Projection.
* For more information on these two pin-registration systems, write:
*
* Maximilian Kerr Associates Inc
* 2040 State Highway 35
* Wall, N.J. 07719
* or
*
* Oxberry
* Division of Richmark Camera Service
* 180 Broad Street
* Carlstadt, N.J. 07072
*
* (Nikon makes a disclaimer stating that the specs are that of the companies
* and that Nikon has nothing to do with these people)
While this info is over five years old (amazingly I remembered where it
was 8-) ), I recall seeing other info about pin-registered systems for
multi-image shows within the last year, but unfortunately cannot find the
source. As I recall, the system (using an F3) was very, very expensive.
Doug Wong