jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (02/17/86)
> I was watching a guy take pictures out of the window of an airplane (which > 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: jer@peora.UUCP Home: jer@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
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (02/18/86)
> 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 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
hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) (02/19/86)
> 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? 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.
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (02/20/86)
>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? 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 . . .
sukenick@ccnysci.UUCP (02/20/86)
>optical glass. I myself prefer to open the window of my plane when taking >pictures and just stick the camera out. > I tried that once, but all my pictures came out blurred. For some 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@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (02/22/86)
In article <2152@utcsri.UUCP>, hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP writes: > > 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 When 70mm film is used in a Hasselblad, it produces the same square image 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.
kludge@gitpyr.UUCP (02/23/86)
In article <1972@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >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
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (02/23/86)
In article <510@tekig4.UUCP> briand@tekig4Diehm.UUCP (Brian Diehm) writes: > >-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 . . . 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 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Godzilla has been spotted in Sector 5!"
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (02/24/86)
<216@ccnysci.UUCP>
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
eugene@ames-nas.ARPAlmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/25/86)
> 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? > Don't know about NASM, but it's still being shown here in Denver at the Natural History Museum, to record crowds, I'm told... Lyle McElhaney ...hao!cisden!lmc
hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) (02/26/86)
> 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. 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@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (03/04/86)
In article <2207@utcsri.UUCP> hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) writes: >> 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).
hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) (03/06/86)
> 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 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.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (03/07/86)
> And no, a Hasselblad couldn't be used for moving pictures. > [... long counterargument following up on a prior posting's long argument > 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 (<1972@peora.UUCP>), I *knew* the astronauts didn't film the IMAX movies with a Hasselblad! The first followup posting (<2207@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: jer@peora.UUCP Home: jer@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...)
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (03/10/86)
>> And no, a Hasselblad couldn't be used for moving pictures. > >Well, folks, I am a little surprised at this long debate, because when I >posted the original "what kind of film" question (<1972@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.