Okay aerial guru's: question about film size, focal length, and the jitters

[pchaplo]

Dan, thanks, I read that Agi article with great interest. I like the Agi camera controls and “gun site.”

No gyro. Agiflites and predecessors shot 6x6 on 70 mm film. They were basically cine cameras, had huge rotating sector shutters. The USCGS kits had two lenses, 150/2.8 Sonnar and 350/5.6 TeleTessar. See, e.g., https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%204466.PDF

This source is basically an AGI press release. The Agiflite is an improved F.139. The F.139 is a Williamson F.134 with the F.134's spring motor replaced with an electric one. AGI took over production of Williamson cameras after Williamson went bust. F.134s and F.139s flew with a variety of lenses, mostly TTH. 4"/2, 12"/4 are the most often seen, there were others. So did early F.95s. When TTH left that market Vinton got most of the F.95's lenses from Elcan, AGI got lenses from Zeiss. The TTH lenses for both lines are super.

For a variety of reasons, Agiflite lenses are very hard to repurpose. The 4"/2.0 TTH, which covers 2x3, is just usable on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. The 12"/4 tele just covers 4x5, can be used on Speed Graphics.

[pchaplo]

Good points. Thanks. Yes I’ve been in 172 a few times. For FF digital, I usually shoot with a 28mm on one camera and a 50mm (or a 28-70mm zoom) in the other. The window is a non-issue. My fav personal images are shot the 28mm, and yes, I can clear the strut, landing gear (prefer fairings off), tail, and wing with a good pilot. Does that imply that I can clear the obstructions with a 90mm on 4x5? I can go longer if needed but I love to see the horizon and the earth wrapping below me in a wider shot. 120mm and gyro might be a more realistic compromise.

Back to my question, I was wondering about focal length. I’m shopping for a field camera then will test with my Ken-Lab gyro. It can all be solved.

I’m also concerned about the parallax of 4x5 viewfinder, too. Perhaps there is a solution - makes me wonder how I can mount viewfinder perhaps to just clear the strut. Or I can get a wider optical viewfinder and mark it with a reference for the strut, etc.

I’m an aviation fanatic so I love all these interesting tangents!

[adelorenzo]

Here is how Bradford Washburn managed to do it with an 8x10 camera: https://goo.gl/images/N1whhB

[Don Dudenbostel]

Have you noticed aerial cameras don't have bellows. There's a reason because you get it in the slipstream and they're ripped from the camera.

Personally I think a 90 is too wide. Possible a 135 and get the pilot to cross control the plane and roll it to the left. Of course in that configuration you can't fly slow or you'll stall. By cross control I mean right rudder and left aileron or vice versa depending on what side of the aircraft your on.

You might see if you can get access to a 172RG. The RG has retractable gear. Even better is the 177RG Cardinal. It's basically a 172 RG with retractable gear, no wing strut and a slightly bigger window. Many have constant speed props allowing for more flexibility in flying.

I'd forget the gyro. Those are mainly for motion picture and will only get in the way. Actually I'd forget 4x5 and shoot a Pentax 6x7.

[Mfagan]

A couple of points that may be useful... last photos I took from a 172 were in the late 70s so maybe the design has changed, but the door windows could be opened in flight, and if the one screw restricting the opening angle is removed, the window will open and stay open up against the underside of the wing. I have shot with a SG keeping the bellows out of the wind. Secondly, when operating from an aircraft carrier (not the 172 of course :-)), we had a cardboard box of Topcons with a 100mm lens — loaded with TechPan in the ready room. Just grab one on way out to man up for the flight and photo any shipping seen, mission permitting. So, I will guess we would go about 300-350 knots along side a ship at about 500 feet. The purpose of the photos was no doubt different than the OP’s, but the images were sufficient for their purposes (shooting through a quite optically imperfect canopy.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I'm assuming these are similar to what you're going to shoot but in a rural area?

I shot these in 1980 from an Instrom F-28 Helicopter with a 4x5 Pacemaker Crown Graphic and 135 Xenar. I used TX film packs because there's not much room for a bag of holders. It was a very hazy day with clouds in the sky.

[pchaplo]

Hi Don, Thanks for sharing these delightful 4x5 aerials shot Pacemaker Crown Graphic. Love those! You handheld 135mm Xenar? What shutter speed and f-stop were typical, do you remember?

I'm assuming these are similar to what you're going to shoot but in a rural area?

I shot these in 1980 from an Instrom F-28 Helicopter with a 4x5 Pacemaker Crown Graphic and 135 Xenar. I used TX film packs because there's not much room for a bag of holders. It was a very hazy day with clouds in the sky.

[pchaplo]

Bradford Washburn is my inspiration! Thanks for the link. I met his nephew about a year ago perhaps at Sierra club.

Here is how Bradford Washburn managed to do it with an 8x10 camera: https://goo.gl/images/N1whhB

[pchaplo]

Slippery analogy: some vertical photography that approximately satellite views is more like high-altitude precision bombing, low-altitude obliques are more like strafing.

[Tin Can]

This thread has me looking at lots of interesting sites.

'Big' Wild Heerbrugg which is also an interesting name. Massive Stereo and complicated. History in the link. Seems the A8 was the best machine for 3 decades. Must still be Top Secret with no picture included.

I'm a big camera nut, but you knew that. The 1937 Model R3 shooting camera image shows the 2 tilted planes using one massive lens. Scroll way down.


http://www.wild-heerbrugg.com/photogrammetry1.htm