Meandering discussion about the utility of aerial lenses

[Asher Kelman]

Toolbox and Polarbear,

Funny to be chatting with pseudonyms that really don't fit together. Technical man v. surviving ecosystem!

Choosing a 7x1i format might be a sweetspot in repurposing high resolution aerial and mapping lenses. This way, one gets a big piece of film in a quite portable camera. Just can't wait to see the results. It would be great to take one feature, say from the center and blow it up x8 to x 12 to see how it holds up.

My interest is using this for people in an architectural setting where both the overall shapes and textures work but one can see all the details of flowers, faces and jewelry when 10" from the image too.

Asher

[EdWorkman]

Polar Bear
Are you SURE there isn't a shutter ?
I have one that I removed from the cone- The shutter was operated- that is cocked set fired via some controls on the body- that i never had- via rods with "universal joint" kind of connections inside the cone.
That DOES mean the controls are prettty much inaccessible with the cone on, barring some clever holes etc thru it. I messed with mine a bit for awhile, exploring a connection to a lite-tite box via a collar that leaves the controls accessible.
The shutter is heck-for-stout=very heavy, and there is not much room for an adequately robust connection that is also a support- A separate baseboard could solve that and black tape could make the connect.
I did do that with a 36 in tele, but its shutter sometimes doesn't return to closed, so instead of an 8x10 I have a 4x5 via the body of Speed and a telescoping box and a taped darkcloth hoodthingy for square-to-round- no fixed focus for me :>)
Good Luck
regards
Ed

[Dan Fromm]

[QUOTE=Asher Kelman;743977Choosing a 7x1i format might be a sweetspot in repurposing high resolution aerial and mapping lenses. This way, one gets a big piece of film in a quite portable camera. Just can't wait to see the results. It would be great to take one feature, say from the center and blow it up x8 to x 12 to see how it holds up.

My interest is using this for people in an architectural setting where both the overall shapes and textures work but one can see all the details of flowers, faces and jewelry when 10" from the image too.[/QUOTE]

Um, Asher, you haven't done your homework. Pre-Cold War lenses for aerial cameras don't have particularly high resolution. Cold War era Soviet lenses don't seem to be that wonderful either, although to be fair to them my good data on them stops in 1963.

The Aerostigmat being discussed here was designed before 1941, isn't that good, and was made to cover 5" x 5". Its AWAR wide open is on the order of 15 lp/mm.

You also don't understand the difference between reconnaissance lenses (USAF Type 1) and mapping lenses (USAF Type 2). Mapping lenses have low distortion, reconnaissance lenses don't. "Mapping lens" doesn't imply high resolution.

Older mapping lenses aren't particularly sharp. Modern ones are, but based on your comments about the impossibility of your buying a heap of Bron flashes you can't afford one. For you they're unattainable objects of desire and, like all such, look better to you than they really are.

[jp]

Putting this whole assembly on a tripod or two would be very problematic, also. A pickup truck bed or a few bags of lead shot on the ground would make a better shooting platform.

A new and suitable use for a "shooting brake".

Does the prism move to counteract the motion of the recon plane/jet?

[John Schneider]

Does the prism move to counteract the motion of the recon plane/jet?

No, the prism rotates to image a panoramic swath of the ground; the lens doesn't cover a ~9" wide negative.

For really low level recce, there are slit cameras, where the aperture is a slit and the film is advanced over the slit (kind of like a focal plane shutter at high speed, but opposite) to correspond to the speed of the plane. I had one using a 6" Metrogon and 9" wide film (presumably the type mounted in RF-8's to verify the Cuban missile sites in the 1961 Crisis), and it was a huge 60+ lb. doorstop, totally unusable for LF photography.

[PolarBear1973]

Finally got a chance to try out the Frankencamera:



Took it out early this morning. Slight breeze. Had to wait for the hat to stop moving (ended up using my lenscap from my 20" Caltar for a shutter). 15 second exposure at f/8:



Seemed to cover 5x7 nicely (although the bellows were longer than infinity). The detail of the lens is not bad despite using a piece of Lexan roughed up with 600 grit sandpaper as a ground glass for focusing. I also used reading glasses to focus because I forgot my loupe in my other LF bag. Here's a mega-crop:



I did use a 500 lumen mountain bike light to help me focus in the low light. This negative was scanned on a V700 (1200 dpi). FP4+ in DD-X.

[Asher Kelman]

Um, Asher, you haven't done your homework. Pre-Cold War lenses for aerial cameras don't have particularly high resolution. Cold War era Soviet lenses don't seem to be that wonderful either, although to be fair to them my good data on them stops in 1963.

Dan,

If I knew, I wouldn't ask! My references are to lenses advertised as having very high resolution such as those by Thomas, here or here.
I have no interest in when the device is made or what it's classification is, only it's performance is as advertised and if it can be applied to my work. Either someone knows or they don't. What makes me hesitate is that there's no body of photographs online I can look at or discussions I can read, or more than one person with authority I can speak to who really might know about these lenses and is not also selling them! So while I can buy a PS945 in a Hollywood second if the price is right, buying an aus Jena lens made of "obscurium" for the same amount or higher carries the risk of losing one's investment immediately to a pretty yellow 30 lb paper weight.

Older mapping lenses aren't particularly sharp. Modern ones are, but based on your comments about the impossibility of your buying a heap of Bron flashes you can't afford one. For you they're unattainable objects of desire and, like all such, look better to you than they really are.

I have a strong suspicion that you are far more helpful than this seemingly dismissive response might suggest. We want to know what might work, not what only can't work, isn't worth the effort or would "disqualify" one from trying in the first place!

As to the "impossibility of buying a heap of Broncolor flashes", that I never even suggested that was the case! Rather, requiring 30,000 Watt seconds for exposing Ilfochrome paper in a camera obscura was a surprise but a shocking fact of life to be dealt with by renting. For Studio flashes, that system is in place in L.A.. I can collect the flashes for the weekend and just pay for one days rent. However, one cannot, being in California, easily rent a very, very rare lens or aerial or mapping camera that only one single, (rather secretive, albeit, devoted), lens guy in Germany has possession of!

Here are the facts of life for buying "stuff" in photography. Any rare popular lens purchased is done so at little risk overall, as they go up in price and the cost of owning them over say 5 years can be minimal as to be irrelevant. Buying a $47,000 Phase One 80 MP camera today would involve a loss of 75% over 5 years. Buying 10 Broncolor 3200 J flash setups would be about $90,000 with no modifications or light shaping. In 5 years, the resale value would be no more than $45,000. So that is a large risk.

However, if I wanted to buy endless rare lenses that folk want, even on whim, there's no risk to spending $100,000 if it does what I need or if it doesn't. There's essentially no big deal about such things. Why? Well you already know better than I that great lenses and LF cameras tend to hold their value and the cost of ownership is modest. It just ties up capital, which as 2% interest in the bank is not really doing well anyway.

I'd really love to have considered input on these and other unusually high resolution lenses at usable contrast which you might be more qualified than I to evaluate for photography for "places with many people" so that it could be printed at 8-16ft high and viewed as very sharp from inches.

Thanks,

Asher

[Dan Fromm]

Re homework, Asher, try using Google. If you want to know what an Aviotar is, look here http://www.galerie-photo.org/n2-f1-91986.html . Then look up the US patent cited in it. I'd completely forgotten posting that information. Re Aviotar's coverage, look here: http://books.google.com/books?id=cVy...ugg%22&f=false

You are too lazy for words.

You are also puzzling. Why do you hold to the idea that you can get the image quality in the final print you say you want when enlarging a 5x7 negative to the gigantic sizes you've been raving about? What do you know that I don't? Share your magic.

You know what a Lamegon is. I gave you a link, here it is again: http://books.google.com/books?id=FSM...gon%22&f=false

[Asher Kelman]

The lenses have high resolution and perhaps usable contrast. If anyone has pictures whereby they know about the use of the lenses for application in photographing detail-rich scenes with people, landscape and the like that would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Finally got a chance to try out the Frankencamera:


Seemed to cover 5x7 nicely (although the bellows were longer than infinity). The detail of the lens is not bad despite using a piece of Lexan roughed up with 600 grit sandpaper as a ground glass for focusing. I also used reading glasses to focus because I forgot my loupe in my other LF bag. I did use a 500 lumen mountain bike light to help me focus in the low light. This negative was scanned on a V700 (1200 dpi). FP4+ in DD-X.

Here's a mega-crop:

This is a great picture in itself. Looks like you just buried a good friend and that's his hat! Impressive!

Asher