PDA

View Full Version : Meandering discussion about the utility of aerial lenses



Asher Kelman
14-Jun-2011, 05:33
I was first introduced to the magic of repurposed aerial lenses seeing an Aero Ektar on a 4x5 camera. These seem to give a lot of sharpness for the investment and some have wide apertures to give multiple uses from portraits to documentation and landscape.

Show your aerial lens and it's pictures!

I am looking at some Wild and aus Jena lenses and want to see what else isworht considering the won't break off the front standard of my beautiful Chamonix 8x10, (with 4x5 reducing back if need be).

Thanks,

Asher

Dan Fromm
14-Jun-2011, 06:11
Asher, you're out of your mind. Few of the lenses fitted to aerial cameras are worth the trouble and expense of bothering with. The 7"/2.5 Aero Ektar and 8"/2.9 Pentac seem to be exceptions. Ignorant barbarian that I am, I see them as cult lenses.

As you may know, I've had a number of lenses from aerial cameras, including several recommended in A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. If you don't have the VM, get a copy. Dan Colucci, who posts here as CCHarrison, will sell you one for $15. If you already have one, or when your copy arrives, read the section "Military Optical Ordinance" in file 008lm.pdf. I concur fully with their analysis.

You can read about my adventures with aerial camera lenses in http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf . I've found only three -- oddly, the VM likes 'em too -- really usable. They are:

Item, 38/4.5 Biogon ex-AGI F135. Wonderful lens, not LF. I use mine on a Century Graphic even though it doesn't cover 2x3. Semi-retired in favor of a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon that puts image, not black, in the corners.

Item, 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat (2 1/4" x 2 1/4"). Wonderful lens, not LF, in barrel, short back focus, can't be put in shutter, and no better from f/5.6 down than a 100+/- f/5.6 plasmat. I've used it on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Retired in favor of a plasmat, and I've rarely hit situations where I could shoot wider than f/5.6.

Item, 12"/4 TTH Telephoto. Fine lens on a Speed Graphic or, perhaps, a Sinar, otherwise useless. Too short back focus to be used on a Graflex or other 4x5 SLR. The longest lens that fits comfortably on a 2x3 Speed. Retired in favor of a 305 Apo Nikkor 'cos with the tele the front bellows frame cuts off the ends of the image.

Re breaking front standards, investigate crutches. Easier to implement on a monorail than on a flatbed camera like your Chamonix.

Re Wild lenses, I've handled the late Charlie Barringer's 44/5.6 Super Aviogon. I believe one could be mounted on a 4x5 Speed, expect that focusing would be problematic. Keep an eye on Westlicht auctions, I believe that its there now. Will probably be expensive.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
14-Jun-2011, 09:05
I guess we may agree to disagree on that one Dan ;)

I had excellent experience using a 180lpm TOPOGON (same Charlie had) on a 8x10 and there are a few others, such as a WILD 8/100, Lamegon 8/100 and a few Biogons which I would need to dig out the results. That actually agrees with results a friend of mine had using same or similar lenses - we had them all on the optical bench for testing.

P.S.:; shouldn't it read "idem" instead of "item" ?

Dan Fromm
14-Jun-2011, 09:33
Klaus, I didn't say all lenses for aerial cameras were bad ideas for general use, rather that most are.

Charlie's monster Topogon was an enlarging lens, not an aerial camera lens. I've held it, or rather, dandled it on my knee. Big, heavy, not easily or inexpensively put in shutter, if at all, and as I recall it had an integral red filter.

The problem with using aerial camera lenses on terrestrial cameras is not that they're bad lenses but that longer ones are large, heavy, not in usable shutters, and expensive to put in shutter if that can be done at all. Most of the shorter ones that come to market are for MF cameras and have such short back focus that they're hard to use. The alternatives -- lenses made for press, technical, or view cameras -- are usually more cost-effective.

Go read my lens diary, the link is in post #2, and you'll have a better understanding of why I so unenthusiastic about 'em. Also, be aware that all being well a 200/2 S.F.O.M. should turn up on my doorstep fairly soon. I can't see a good way to use it, except for bragging rights.

Re idem, it has the same sense as loc. cit. Item, as I used it, means "Here's an example."

jb7
14-Jun-2011, 09:46
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4878194051_23f5146436_z.jpg


I bought this lens as a surrogate for any big, heavy lens.
It wasn't expensive, well, not as expensive as postage from the UK...

I'm building a big camera, and wanted to get an idea of the weight that I'd need to be able to hang on the front-
should I ever feel the need to hang a big number Petzval, or some other heavy antique there-

In the meantime, this one is usable, although I haven't used it beyond testing it a little-
I haven't built the camera yet, but I have attached it to the 8x10 (and 4x5) just to see what kind of pictures it makes.

Or rather, I've attached an 8x10 and a 4x5 to the lens and made some pictures-
I'm sure a similar setup could easily be made for any camera and lens combination,
provided the rear element is about the same size as the front bellows opening.

This one has a Packard mounted in the rear, quite a large one-
I've also tested it on a DSLR, for convenience-

Dan, that's a nice piece of research, nicely presented-
I'm not sure if it's quite fair to compare a long lens used on medium format to a long lens on a format that can better be presented as a contact print. True, they are ridiculous things, but ridiculous exists on a sliding scale, and for a lot of people, ridiculous would have been reached way before 4x5.
The idea that any of these things are suitable for general use might be an idea challenged by anyone not already a patient here...

Would I recommend it? Probably not, not unless your curiosity couldn't be sated any other way- but that's your call-


Although, as I mentioned, I haven't done much with it, there are some pictures of it and from it here-


http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/sets/72157625401037924/

Dan Fromm
14-Jun-2011, 10:02
Joseph, around the time I was contemplating getting one of those monstrosities for my Baby Bertha I came across an affordable 900/10 Apo Saphir. Process lens, not an aerial camera lens, and better, I hope, than good enough for the likes of me. Only a little over 4 kg.

You're right, there's ridiculous and then there's ridiculous. Here's ridiculous. http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/t1524.html Swelp me, when I met it -- Surplus Shack isn't that far from my home -- it was being used as a coffee table.

jb7
14-Jun-2011, 10:16
Yes, I had seen that one-
Hopefully, that's one of their many Military Secrets,
and they're prevented from exporting it to me, by law...

Jim Galli
14-Jun-2011, 10:26
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/ElevationWheel.jpg
elevation wheel

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/WhiteCoffeeCuo.jpg
white coffee mug

Both done with Air Ministry 14" f5.6 TTH Cooke Aviar

A lovely lens but very heavy.

Asher Kelman
14-Jun-2011, 23:32
Dan,

What an encyclopedic knowledge you have collected! I atually read through your entire adventure and wonder how on earth your family dealt with all the arrivals!


Joseph,

That hernia giving lens is a sculpture!



Jim,

Yours are beautiful! I like the images and the characteristic soft periphery you are infamous for! Shows one of the 2 great values of these aerial lenses: wide open for art or portraits or even landscape. You have excelled here! How heavy is heavy? Is this bigger than a Visual Quality? This might be fun to shoot with.


Klaus,

Here's my hypothesis. "There might be an deal combination of aerial or survey lens and camera format with film that could deliver exceptional resolution and color in one of the common Large camera formats."

Obviously, using 8x10 and a great modern lens I already can acquire a lot of detail. But going down to just 5x7 where some of the better aerial or surveying lenses might cover, it could be that one ends up with more detail.



So, Guys,

Where is the sweet spot for the most refined aerial lenses for landscape or macro with 8x10, 5x7 or 4x5 format that can be tamed to a practical relationship with the camera for the highest resolution for available B&W and or color film film in that format.

I see Lumnars in a yellow 5x7 surveying camera minus the surveying frame that are asking $4800 or so!

Using a glass plate is hardly practical for these shots to match up with the precision surfaces, unless the plates are readily available. Same with 5" rollfilm to match the lens MTF. What's practical. I have no problem getting a 5x7 back or else a second camera if the lens could delver stellar performance.

The guy who sells the Jena and the like aerial and survey lenses appears to be nice interesting fellow and dedicated but I have not found any pictures to match the selling prices and there's no Jena or Czech Republic factory to call and get brochures, LOL! Who has had these lenses. Why are there no pictures? Why only one eBay seller of the Lamogen and most of the relatives?

A pity Zeiss Jena closed! What a huge loss!

Asher

Dan Fromm
15-Jun-2011, 02:19
Asher, it took quite a while for me to accumulate my heap of lenses. By the standards of real collectors it is quite a small heap. I had -- he died last year -- a neighbor, Charlie Barringer, who was, relative to me, a major collector. When I remarked on that to him, he commented that he knew collectors whose heaps made his look small. Two of Charlie's lenses are mentioned here: http://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?lang=3

As for getting astounding resolution on film, see these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744296/sizes/o/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744224/sizes/o/ See also the Perez/Thalmann lens tests. It isn't easy and can't be done consistently.

See also http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

There's no magic lens that will rescue you from poor technique. Most decent anastigmats that will cover large format (define it as you will) deliver more resolution on film than you can use. Just get a decent set of lenses and work on your technique. That's where gains can be made.

Don't obsess about lenses. Charlie didn't. He concurred with one of the major points I made in my lens diary. Lenses are good enough to use or not good enough to use. Good enough is good enough. The differences in performance among lenses that are good enough are minor.

Zeiss Jena didn't close. The firm was absorbed by the Carl Zeiss Foundation.

Re macro lenses and what can be done at high magnification, again technique, not optics, is the big problem. And there are very real limits to what can be accomplished. See Gibson, H. Lou. Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography. 1970. Publication N-16. Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. 98+95+6 pp. The two sections were published separately as Kodak Publications N-12A and N-12B respectively. Republished in 1977 with changes and without the 6 page analytic supplement, which was published separately as Kodak Publication N-15. 1977 edition is ISBN 0-87985-206-2. Gibson's Photomacrography is absolutely terrifying.

Ramiro Elena
15-Jun-2011, 03:01
Aero Ektar:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/5780466810_ac24e0caa9_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5553419811_24473fd65f_z.jpg

I am trying to do a series of places in my town with the Aero Ektar and having a hard time but hey, it's a challenge.

More here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/tags/aeroektar/).

Pentac (not Dallmeyer):

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5206044569_ab14fd6bea_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5206642480_79109f2655_z.jpg

This one I am giving away, it's crap. I understand the quality varies from one to another. I must have gotten a shitty one.

Sevo
15-Jun-2011, 04:00
In my experience, the commonly available affordable aerial lenses are no better (and sometimes even worse) than reasonably modern large format lenses, at least when used on regular view cameras. My guess is that we are already planarity limited on view cameras with the regular Plasmat or Biogon types. The higher MTF figures for aerial lenses may be fiction unless you use a rigid body and vacuum back - but under these conditions your average Symmar or SA should perform better as well.

GPS
15-Jun-2011, 04:28
...
You can read about my adventures with aerial camera lenses in http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf . I've found only three -- oddly, the VM likes 'em too -- really usable.
...

Really usable by whom? By an amateur who tries to mate precise aerial lenses with a Graflex camera testing the monster on grass or fence poles? No wonder!
Just remember that those aerial lenses were very well usable for their purpose by those who used them in their non Graflex machines - to get a perspective on it out of your fence. ;)

GPS
15-Jun-2011, 04:32
In my experience, the commonly available affordable aerial lenses are no better (and sometimes even worse) than reasonably modern large format lenses, at least when used on regular view cameras. My guess is that we are already planarity limited on view cameras with the regular Plasmat or Biogon types. The higher MTF figures for aerial lenses may be fiction unless you use a rigid body and vacuum back - but under these conditions your average Symmar or SA should perform better as well.

I agree. "Better" is perhaps just a fact that they have a bigger aperture, if that is now something someone is after...

Dan Fromm
15-Jun-2011, 05:09
Really usable by whom? By an amateur who tries to mate precise aerial lenses with a Graflex camera testing the monster on grass or fence poles? No wonder!
Just remember that those aerial lenses were very well usable for their purpose by those who used them in their non Graflex machines - to get a perspective on it out of your fence. ;)GPS, substantive criticism -- suggestions about how to do things better, pointing out errors in arithmetic and reasoning, presenting results in conflict with mine -- is always welcome. Personal abuse is not.

You, m'friend, have stepped over that line.

Not only that, you missed two important points. The first is that not all aerial lenses are particularly good. This is supported by, e.g., resolution measurements on USAF lens data sheets and in the 1963 GOI catalog. The second is that I've said clearly that many lenses for aerial cameras are very good indeed but unusable by such as you because of mechanical and financial constraints.

And you misquoted me. I reported good results with my little wooden (and plastic, too) spookies from some of my aerial camera lenses, poor results from others. If you can't report accurately why should anyone take you seriously?

Stop sniping and start doing.

One thing you can do is buy some lenses made for aerial cameras and discover for yourself what using them requires. I suggest that you start with a 150/2.8 Elcan C138. They're not too expensive, not too hard to find, and pretty useless. Offer enough and I'll sell you mine.

If you want a real challenge, try to find a Perkin-Elmer 18"/4 Recon 640. Per USAF, its AWAR wide open with a Wratten 12 filter, 1000:1 target, and Kodak 3404 film is 201 lp/mm. It weighs only 18.6 pounds and has a fixed aperture. Oh, yeah, it covers 4x5.

You can also obtain catalogs/USAF data sheets and see the lenses' dimensions, including weight and back focus.

Get on it, and good luck.

toolbox
15-Jun-2011, 05:22
I've got a 12" f5 Kodak Aerostigmat that I'm going to try out soon... It came mounted on a B&J board with a Packard shutter, and it required some modifications to make it work on my Calumet C1. Someone must have paid a lot of money to have it put together....the lens is mounted in a very nicely machined aluminum mount. That shutter just *barely* clears the opening of my C1 front standard, but it will work. I haven't been able to find much of any information on this lens (or examples) so I'm pretty curious to see how it work on 8x10. Also finally got a new bulb for the Packard, so all I really need is the time to try it out (and that's actually the hard part for me...)
I'll post some samples when I finally get a chance to shoot it...

Dan Fromm
15-Jun-2011, 05:38
toolbox, one would think that it should cover 8x10. But the USAF data sheets say that it is for 5"x5", also that it isn't very sharp wide open.

12"/5 Aerostigmats have been discussed a bit over the years. I don't recall strong favorable comments, doubt that this means much.

By all means try it out and tell us how it does for you.

Also, would you please count reflections and tell us whether it is a tessar type. If a tessar type, there should be four strong and no weak reflections from the front cell, two strong and one weak from the rear cell. The weak reflection may be hard to see. I ask because I recall discussions, with no clear conclusion reached, about whether the 12"/5 Aerostigmat is a tessar type.

GPS
15-Jun-2011, 05:39
...

Stop sniping and start doing.

One thing you can do is buy some lenses made for aerial cameras and discover for yourself what using them requires.
...

Sorry Dan, I'm intelligent enough to know that trying aerial lenses on a Graflex camera is not a usable test of their "being good or not" or their "being usable or not". If that offences you personally, good luck to you.

Dan Fromm
15-Jun-2011, 06:26
GPS, you do scorn very well but are weak on substance.

And you don't read well. There's a large difference between being good enough to use and being mountable on a press, technical, or view camera.

GPS
15-Jun-2011, 06:39
Dan, it is silly endeavour to try to make from a Graflex camera an optical bench to test aerial lenses as good or usable if all you want is to know if they are mountable on a press, technical or view camera. Enough said.

Dan Fromm
15-Jun-2011, 07:06
GPS, you still can't read. If you could read, you'd have read that I found my 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat a better lens at all apertures down to its smallest (f/16) than my 101/4.5 Ektar.

GPS
15-Jun-2011, 07:07
Good for you, Dan.

Asher Kelman
15-Jun-2011, 22:01
In my experience, the commonly available affordable aerial lenses are no better (and sometimes even worse) than reasonably modern large format lenses, at least when used on regular view cameras. My guess is that we are already planarity limited on view cameras with the regular Plasmat or Biogon types. The higher MTF figures for aerial lenses may be fiction unless you use a rigid body and vacuum back - but under these conditions your average Symmar or SA should perform better as well.

Sevo,

Yes, the modern lenses in neat shutters are improved in DOF by a smaller aperture, but the resolution might very well be decreased from ~ wde-open. Can they get 90-200 lp/mm too under any conditions?

When you talk of the aerial lenses being planarity-limited that's for a certain format size. However, is there a format where one can get really outstanding above "modern normal" LF lens resolution with aerial lenses and have a practical system.

What about, for example, the Lamogens on 5x7?

Asher

Ole Tjugen
15-Jun-2011, 22:25
I should try my 500/5.5 Schneider Göttingen Aerotar one day. It's a heavy lens, from what I can see it's a 10/3 dialyte derivative. It should fit on my big Reisekamera, which has a front rigid enough for just about anything; with a reducing insert and 13x18cm film (or maybe 18x24?) it should work. If I can find some way of mounting a Packard shutter on or behind it.

Dan Fromm
16-Jun-2011, 02:36
Ole, thanks for mentioning a few practical problems of implementation.

Asher, the correct spelling is Lamegon. There's also a Super Lamegon. Where these lenses and others in their class really shine is in low distortion. They were made for photogrammetry, not for reconnaissance. Most lenses for military aerial cameras were made for recon and aren't really suited for photogrammetry.

As you can read here http://books.google.com/books?id=FSMn1T1B-LEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22super+lamegon%22&source=bl&ots=SF_eqzPgYH&sig=blfmd6fUFWlXDVxuEGnMd5tdtbY&hl=en&ei=rcv5TdTDMur20gGU_sCDAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22super%20lamegon%22&f=false photogrammetry is done with terrestrial as well as with aerial cameras.

See this http://web2.ges.gla.ac.uk/~gpetrie/Petrie_Kalao_Testing_Russar_SWA_Photography_fulltext.pdf too, it may bring you back to earth.

My friend Charlie had at least three SMK-120s, each with a pair of 55/8 Lamegons. I think they've gone to Westlicht. Probably not for you, they shoot 2x3.

If you want really high resolution on-film, shoot 35 mm Agfa Copex processed for continuous tone,use a good grade of normal (for 35 mm still) lens, and meticulous technique. In other words, give up your fantasies and join the rest of us who do well to get 60 lp/mm on film consistently.

Sevo
16-Jun-2011, 02:59
Yes, the modern lenses in neat shutters are improved in DOF by a smaller aperture, but the resolution might very well be decreased from ~ wde-open. Can they get 90-200 lp/mm too under any conditions?


Some do - the inherent limits of the schematics tend to be a magnitude above the limit of production and assembly, so there is enough margin upwards if the elements are well matched and perfectly assembled and aligned. YMMV, though, makers specs usually put LF lenses in the 40-90 range, and in assembly they will go for a increased centre resolution above spec only if that by some lucky accident happens not to compromise the edge resolution and flatness of field.



When you talk of the aerial lenses being planarity-limited that's for a certain format size. However, is there a format where one can get really outstanding above "modern normal" LF lens resolution with aerial lenses and have a practical system.


If there are parallelity issues with the standards or planarity issues with bulging film, you will have to stop down to safe limits, where you'd lose the extra resolution to diffraction. Regular view cameras are designed that neither will affect focusing at f/5.6 or exposure at f/11 - you probably would have to go for a micro geared "digital medium format back" view camera to get the standards precision needed for 200lp/mm@f/2.8. And in any case you would have to use a vacuum back.

Besides, there is yet another issue. With movements adjusted under visual control, it is plain impossible to set up to the needed µm precision for a 200lp/mm resolution - to get movements with the latter, you either have to set up by measurements and calculation (hardly practicable even for still-life studio work) or the camera would have to be locked down plumb centre (after being precision adjusted in its neutral setting), which sacrifices the main point of using large format. As few of the more recent high end aerial lenses cover anything past 4x5, you are constrained to rather small formats too, and the total resolution across the image area is not that big even for a 200lp/mm lens - switching to 8x10 with a regular lens will deliver quite as high image resolution with extra DOF and without losing movements.

That is, using aerial lenses on a view camera for higher resolving power will rarely succeed in practice - but they may be an option if you need a low-DOF fast lens with LF coverage.

Jim Galli
16-Jun-2011, 06:10
Better than modern...........

Worse than modern.............

Some of us are working to a different goal than 68 line pairs in a millimeter. An uncoated Cooke Aviar with 8 air glass interfaces is not something that wins in a comparison to a multi-coated plasmat. But there are some who are bored to tears with multi-coated Plasmat look. So better & worse are highly relative terms to the user's intent.

Each lens must be used to make actual pictures and then evaluated for what it does or doesn't bring to the table relative to the user's vision, not line pairs per millimeter.

Process lenses and aerial lenses are not the first place I look for what I want a lens to do, but there are some exceptions. An f2.5 or 2.9 lens might have something for a 4X5 user that normally can't get that shallow a depth of field any other way. And the Aviar does have a pleasing look.........to me.

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 12:29
Better than modern...........

Worse than modern.............

Some of us are working to a different goal than 68 line pairs in a millimeter. An uncoated Cooke Aviar with 8 air glass interfaces is not something that wins in a comparison to a multi-coated plasmat. But there are some who are bored to tears with multi-coated Plasmat look. So better & worse are highly relative terms to the user's intent.

Each lens must be used to make actual pictures and then evaluated for what it does or doesn't bring to the table relative to the user's vision, not line pairs per millimeter.

Process lenses and aerial lenses are not the first place I look for what I want a lens to do, but there are some exceptions. An f2.5 or 2.9 lens might have something for a 4X5 user that normally can't get that shallow a depth of field any other way. And the Aviar does have a pleasing look.........to me.

Jim,

In 35 mm photography, I rarely go much more than f.18 to f 4.0. Almost never more than f8 as diffraction rears its head with the tiny sensels (ie pixels). With large format, as you know, my main interest is using the soft focus high speed lenses wide open for portraits.

However, where the object of the shoot is not an artistic rendering of a person or landscape, but getting exceptional detail, (not the magic of the PS945 or Visual Quality lenses), then either I can use existing lenses closed down on 8x10 to about f16 or a little more or, use my 4x5 reducing back and find lenses which although have small circles of coverage are far superior in resolution.

That's where my knowledge ends! What lenses, be aerial or modern would give any advantage over simply using what I already have in 8x10?

Asher

Jim Galli
16-Jun-2011, 12:35
Can't think of a one. The ones I saw in your kit were splendid choices. Except of course that one you just bought from me :D:D You'll have some fun with that at the portraits. jg


Jim,

In 35 mm photography, I rarely go much more than f.18 to f 4.0. Almost never more than f8 as diffraction rears its head with the tiny sensels (ie pixels). With large format, as you know, my main interest is using the soft focus high speed lenses wide open for portraits.

However, where the object of the shoot is not an artistic rendering of a person or landscape, but getting exceptional detail, (not the magic of the PS945 or Visual Quality lenses), then either I can use existing lenses closed down on 8x10 to about f16 or a little more or, use my 4x5 reducing back and find lenses which although have small circles of coverage are far superior in resolution.

That's where my knowledge ends! What lenses, be aerial or modern would give any advantage over simply using what I already have in 8x10?

Asher

EdWorkman
16-Jun-2011, 13:02
Dan
Thanks for your work and sharing of your experience.
About 10 yrs ago C&H surplus had several choices of aerial lenses, including a 48 inch, complete with massive cone. That one was priced at IIRC $1500, covered 9x18?
I did lose my sanity and bought a 36 inch tele for 9x9, replete with an almost impossible to use shutter. Last year i dug it out and mounted it on a 1x6, with a telescoping box for focussing, and the working parts of an Anniversary Graphic on the rear of that for 4x5. And another thing, I don't call it an optical bench, I call it , I call it "Hey-let's-see-if-this-monster-actually-can-make-a-picture".
It is so heavy and awkward that i haven't schlepped it out for exposures, but I recently got a pickup truck and have few excuses left.
Is it good? At a smallest hole f16 it will probly be dicey, and I could have hung around to find a lot smaller lighter better process lens, like a Wray, but then who would lead the fight against mental heath?

Dan Fromm
16-Jun-2011, 13:45
Ed, thanks for the kind words. I'm not the only madman around, regret that none of the others have compiled accounts of their lens mistakes and shared them with the rest of us. I can understand not wanting to look foolish, but (a) its survivable and (b) everyone knows they're fools anyway.

I remember looking at C&H's on-line catalog and wondering what could be done with their four footer. Hawkeye, IIRC. I wasn't crazy or rich enough to buy it back then and unfortunately (?) I'm still not. I had a good TTH 12"/4 Telephoto so was spared the joy of discovering at first hand that C&H's 12"/4 Hycon teles weren't achromats.

I've built, with much help from the machine shop, a sort of Baby Bertha that incorporates a 2x3 RB Series B Graflex and a 2x3 Cambo SC and lots more. So far every time I've convinced myself that I've solved its last, um, teething problem another one has cropped up.

I found a 36"/6.3 Booth (= Dallmeyer) telephoto that I contemplating buying for it, instead got a slightly shorter 900/10 Apo Saphir for a bit less money. I've set Baby up with the 900, looked through it, found a design problem (my fault) and haven't got around to having the offending bits corrected. With lenses that long stability is a real problem that I've only half solved.

I'm not sure that getting the 900 Apo Saphir was any saner than getting the 36"/6.3 would have been. Long process lenses are heavy too, and all long lenses are hard to aim and keep steady.

Cheers,

Dan

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 16:04
Dan,

Long lenses on 4x5 can be more easily aimed and very accurately centered with a 4x5 to digital camera accessory. I have one for my Canon Eos cameras and for Nikon too. Then one can remove the adapter and refocus on the GG. I happen to routinely do 6x12, stitching several rows of overlapping Canon 5DII rows of images.

However, for aerial, surveying, mapping lenses and the like, on a LF camera, I'd like to just take advantage of resolution made for these applications and use that for detail rich scenes and magnifications greater than I can get by single shots with my current lenses.


So, back to being a little more conservative and a tad less crazy, LOL, (but still, if we must, testing the integrity of the front standard). What about lenses of not so great focal length that would cover between 6x6cm to 8"x10" with unusually impressive resolution? Camera is on a tripod. Digital back or film.

What lens other than a modern Rodenstock or Schneider digital lens and super-big price tag?

IOW, this combo would be a bargain, transportable way of achieving very detail-rich images on 6x6 up to 8x10 that would have more resolution than 8x10 with current lenses?

Asher

Jim Galli
16-Jun-2011, 16:15
O.K., back to being a little more conservative and a tad less crazy, LOL, but still, if we must, testing the integrity of the front standard. What about lenses of not so great focal length that would cover between 6x6cm to 8"x10" with unusually impressive resolution. Camera is on a tripod. Digital back or film.

What lens other than a modern Rodenstock or Schneider digital lens?

Asher


Asher, me thinks you be a chasin' th' silver bullet. Of course now, I'll not be above telling you the very next lens I put up for sale is the one too. I've got several I'm thinking of selling that can resolve 195 lines in a mm. ;)

Dan Fromm
16-Jun-2011, 16:16
Asher, why don't you reason from final print size to resolution needed in the negative given format? Assume 8 lp/mm in the final print.

I ask because resolution on film is only one argument in the equation ...

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 16:26
Asher, me thinks you be a chasin' th' silver bullet. Of course now, I'll not be above telling you the very next lens I put up for sale is the one too. I've got several I'm thinking of selling that can resolve 195 lines in a mm. ;)

Well, Jim,

I start of with a great admiration for your deep love of this yellow tour bus we both travel in, (just for a while) and your apparent integrity, as your passport, LOL! (Based on deeds, not thoughts), I don't think you're much of a risk, (on balance, of course)! So, that being the case, I'd sure love to know what gremlin-gift-optics have surprised you on a cold misty morning when you went out to check the air and stretch your legs.

195 lines in a mm for is an attention-getting intro to a lens about to make her debutante appearance. So now, what's the rest of her story and what do you think she might do for a good fellow, under the best circumstances?

Asher

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 16:36
Asher, why don't you reason from final print size to resolution needed in the negative given format? Assume 8 lp/mm in the final print.

I ask because resolution on film is only one argument in the equation ...

Work back from an idealized 300 dpi from an image scanned on film at 2400 dpi, ie a mag of 8x. for 60 inches high on and 8x10, I'd get a 64" x 80" print size at 300 dpi, no problem at all. That print one might approach to within 10 inches and appear sharp!

How many lp/mm that is I'm not sure.

I'd want double that!

Asher

Jim Galli
16-Jun-2011, 17:02
Asher, Seriously, I recommend this book (http://product.half.ebay.com/Image-Clarity-High-Resolution-Photography-by-John-B-Williams-1990-Hardcover/1381460&tg=info). It got me on the right path. I veered off the path later, but the knowledge base is indeed intact.

Image Clarity by John B. Williams. Published in 1990. As Dan says, there are many bricks in your building besides the lens.

Dan Fromm
16-Jun-2011, 17:05
300 dpi is pretty fuzzy. Your standards are too low.

With the best equipment and meticulous technique film can't be enlarged more than 10x. Given that, take your desired print size and back out the format you have to shoot.

Earlier in this thread I gave you links to an article in the Modern Photography that was that explored what could be done. Backtrack and read them. Jim tells me you're very bright. I rarely doubt anything he says, but you seem to have an obsession that's making you stupid.

If you believe this http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/361737 , up to 50x is possible from a 35 mm negative. I doubt it but I could be mistaken. 10x is almost attainable routinely. Almost. More than that takes heroic measures and isn't easily repeatable.

Have you contemplated using stitching to avoid enlarging much?

Jim beat me to suggesting that you get a copy of Image Clarity. He's right, the lens isn't the only part of the system that limits what can be done. If you want huge prints, shoot huge negatives.

EdWorkman
16-Jun-2011, 17:33
Asher
Don't get too carried away by dpi/lpm yet.
Explore the idea of a 4x6 ft print and see what happens at 10 inches.
Better yet, get a closeup look at a billboard.
You can't see the 4x6 picture at 10 inches nor can you see the picture on the billboard at 10 feet- all you can see is dots, and so what if you can see 20 or 40?
Form is translatable from those dots only if you have enough to show variation of gray or color. Ya gotta GET BACK to see the picture.
I like sharp and strive for it and hate it when I fail, but I have learned a coupla things
A looong time ago we took a pinhole photo of the inside of a "3 dimensional space modulator" in architect school and presented it as a 2D print with the 3D model. The idea was to used curves surfaces to define positive and negative spaces. The instructor pointed out what we had discovered. The pinhole pic was small in order to get inside the model. On the board the print was large. Viewed at 10-20 inches the print shoed NO depth or form, but viewed properly from 4 feet it popped, and difraction effects were not significant. When the instuctor backed up he agreed.
The second i learned from a mistake- I was using a rangefinder and after i had exposed the neg I found I had knocked the f stop setting and wasn't going to get the overall sharpness I thought I wanted. But the print, which appeared to be sharp, was slightly soft beyond the main subject and I got depth- a duuuuuh moment and a better image.
There's a 4x6 foot print in the Camera store in San Luis Obispo [ well I haven't been downtown in years, it WAS there.] One can't get close without going behind the counter. i know the neg was made on 116 film in 1937 by an amateur. From the public side the picture pops. An 8x10 from that neg looks very mediocre in one's hands.
IF you are a spy and want to make and 8x10 neg and blow up a .2x.2 inch section to , well say 8x10, ignore all of the above.

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 17:43
300 dpi is pretty fuzzy. Your standards are too low.

With the best equipment and meticulous technique film can't be enlarged more than 10x. Given that, take your desired print size and back out the format you have to shoot. Of course!


Earlier in this thread I gave you links to an article in the Modern Photography that was that explored what could be done. Backtrack and read them. Jim tells me you're very bright. I rarely doubt anything he says, but you seem to have an obsession that's making you stupid.

Dan,

Interest and inquiring does not obsession make! My quest is simply to find out if there's a practical role of some affordable, albeit clumsy but), unusually fine lenses in my own photography, nothing more, nothing less.

I really appreciate you generously sharing your experience. So I'll put focus on your good content!


If you believe this http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/361737 , up to 50x is possible from a 35 mm negative. I doubt it but I could be mistaken. 10x is almost attainable routinely. Almost. More than that takes heroic measures and isn't easily repeatable.

Have you contemplated using stitching to avoid enlarging much?


I have a used Topaz II that I've just taken delivery of for scanning my films. I have not got it running but hope to do so in the next week. I said 8 x because that's unheroic and obtainable with most films. I could have used the 10X figure, but just didn't! I want to be able to just arrive with my camera, take my picture and leave. I don't want to have to stitch every time and that in part, (in addition to my major love of early 20th Century soft lenses), is the reason for my return to LF!

I already do stitching far beyond what most folk would contemplate. The hard thing is having perfect transitions in the near field, (even with a good precision platform as I have. Anyone can stitch distance objects, even handheld, as software does all the rotations and transformations in any axis and makes a convincingly "perfect" image.

Added to that, I also work with people in short spaces and moving things like branches and tall plants. So I like to be able to get everything in one shot.

Asher

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 17:52
Asher
Don't get too carried away by dpi/lpm yet.
Explore the idea of a 4x6 ft print and see what happens at 10 inches.
Better yet, get a closeup look at a billboard.
You can't see the 4x6 picture at 10 inches nor can you see the picture on the billboard at 10 feet- all you can see is dots, and so what if you can see 20 or 40?

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your input. I know all about the dots. Also some pictures seen small are not very impressive. However the same image with no more detail on a large wall becomes impressive and magnetic because the size of presentation can change the experience.

In this case, I'm not concerned with the overall composition and gestures which are indeed appreciated for 10 -20 feet or more from the photograph. That is for the magnetic draw. I'm also interested in there being new detailed imagery when one is at 16-20 inches too!

The rest of your post is magnificent!




Form is translatable from those dots only if you have enough to show variation of gray or color. Ya gotta GET BACK to see the picture.
I like sharp and strive for it and hate it when I fail, but I have learned a coupla things
A looong time ago we took a pinhole photo of the inside of a "3 dimensional space modulator" in architect school and presented it as a 2D print with the 3D model. The idea was to used curves surfaces to define positive and negative spaces. The instructor pointed out what we had discovered. The pinhole pic was small in order to get inside the model. On the board the print was large. Viewed at 10-20 inches the print shoed NO depth or form, but viewed properly from 4 feet it popped, and difraction effects were not significant. When the instuctor backed up he agreed.
The second i learned from a mistake- I was using a rangefinder and after i had exposed the neg I found I had knocked the f stop setting and wasn't going to get the overall sharpness I thought I wanted. But the print, which appeared to be sharp, was slightly soft beyond the main subject and I got depth- a duuuuuh moment and a better image.
There's a 4x6 foot print in the Camera store in San Luis Obispo [ well I haven't been downtown in years, it WAS there.] One can't get close without going behind the counter. i know the neg was made on 116 film in 1937 by an amateur. From the public side the picture pops. An 8x10 from that neg looks very mediocre in one's hands.
IF you are a spy and want to make and 8x10 neg and blow up a .2x.2 inch section to , well say 8x10, ignore all of the above.

Asher Kelman
16-Jun-2011, 19:34
Asher, Seriously, I recommend this book (http://product.half.ebay.com/Image-Clarity-High-Resolution-Photography-by-John-B-Williams-1990-Hardcover/1381460&tg=info). It got me on the right path. I veered off the path later, but the knowledge base is indeed intact.

Image Clarity by John B. Williams. Published in 1990. As Dan says, there are many bricks in your building besides the lens.

Jim,

Yes, that's a good book but does not end up as a practical guide for choice of lenses I seek. In fact, the lenses I'd like may be just the best modern lenses in modern shutters, albeit expensive. I want to have great detail with one shot, eschewing the stitching I already do well but with great time waste!

I have a good concept of the limits of human vision, both the physiology and psycho-physiology of how images can be perceived and interpreted. I know about the physics of optics enough to understand everything the author puts forward. I have an appreciation of the changes in user experience in seeing images at both different sizes, on various backgrounds, circumstances and viewing distance. All these are subjects that I use in my work.

Here, however, in my quest for older high quality lenses, I am still learning the types of available lenses and wishing to not to have to buy brand new costly digitar types designed to meet the challenges of an 80 MP back!

That having been said, outside of my fascination with soft focus portraits of things and people, I want to explore the following.

Images where the composition and motifs work at the viewing distance of 20 feet and then when one approaches to 18 inches or so, there's surprising and fascinating extra detail and activity, all over, just like in a Peter Bruegel the elder picture, but 3 times the size.

Asher

GPS
17-Jun-2011, 00:48
...

However, for aerial, surveying, mapping lenses and the like, on a LF camera, I'd like to just take advantage of resolution made for these applications and use that for detail rich scenes and magnifications greater than I can get by single shots with my current lenses.
...


You won't get that. For the simple reasons, mentioned already by Sevo, that the lens itself is not delivering the "advantage of resolution" you want to have. The lens must be paired to a rigid body (forget manually installed lens standards) and a vacuum back. Aerial cameras, conceived to get the most of details under a high magnification have their constructional logic, something you like to ignore.

toolbox
17-Jun-2011, 06:39
toolbox, one would think that it should cover 8x10. But the USAF data sheets say that it is for 5"x5", also that it isn't very sharp wide open.

12"/5 Aerostigmats have been discussed a bit over the years. I don't recall strong favorable comments, doubt that this means much.

By all means try it out and tell us how it does for you.

Also, would you please count reflections and tell us whether it is a tessar type. If a tessar type, there should be four strong and no weak reflections from the front cell, two strong and one weak from the rear cell. The weak reflection may be hard to see. I ask because I recall discussions, with no clear conclusion reached, about whether the 12"/5 Aerostigmat is a tessar type.


I've seen a couple 9x9" recon/mapping cameras it was also supposed to be used on, so I'm pretty confident it'll cover 8x10. Guess we'll find out for sure though :D. And being a little soft wide open isn't a deal killer...not everything needs to be pin sharp :). I tried to check the reflections this morning...the front looked like it had 3 strong, the rear two strong (they all looked pretty strong to me, but maybe I just don't know what I'm looking at). I couldn't see any weak reflections, but I didn't have a lot of time to mess with it, so I could be wrong. I'll take a closer look tonight, and see what I can see...

EdWorkman
17-Jun-2011, 11:25
Okay Asher, I understand, I think, that you want a BIG print of say, San Francisco Bay Area and be able to walk up close and identify people walking on Market Street.
I see how that works from space from my favorite TV crime shows, but I can't think of a horizontal theme. Something akin to shooting the North Rim from the South Rim and being able to walk up close to the giant print and be able to pick out the mountain sheep on the cliffs? i can dig that.
GO for it and let us know if it sucks, or you need a filmholder that does.
regards and success
Ed

Asher Kelman
17-Jun-2011, 12:01
Okay Asher, I understand, I think, that you want a BIG print of say, San Francisco Bay Area and be able to walk up close and identify people walking on Market Street.
I see how that works from space from my favorite TV crime shows, but I can't think of a horizontal theme. Something akin to shooting the North Rim from the South Rim and being able to walk up close to the giant print and be able to pick out the mountain sheep on the cliffs? i can dig that.
GO for it and let us know if it sucks, or you need a filmholder that does.
regards and success
Ed

Hi Ed,

I've been doing this with stitching many separate digital shots of 60-100 people and then assembling them in a large background shot of a school courtyard with magnificent architecture, that also a pano assembly. However, it takes 40 hours of work to perfect the background and then one has to put in the people and match the perspective, which itself is dependent on the projections used in making super-wide panos.

I now realized that assembling people and shooting with one lens can reach the quality I seek without going crazy with math and blending, matching color temps and so forth.

So I decided to leverage my investment in LF, (done for my "Galliitis" love of soft portrait), to enable me to do massive compositions in one or two shots. Actually a vacuum back would not be any problem at all! What I realize now is that illumination and rendering across the field should be uniform as possible. I can correct illumination perfectly in Photoshop or Capture One if need be. Softness in the periphery, however, cannot be repaired without deconvolution software and added complexity. So that's why I thought that lenses designed for mapping and the like would have all these technical aspects aced.

Until now, my lenses where chosen on the basis of having softness and some vignetting. Here, I have to start from the beginning. That's my interest in stellar lenses.

Of course, my existing lenses, stopped down, might give the contrast at high resolution to allow 10-16 foot high prints that one could walk right up to and admire the hairs on a moustache or the finesse of silk on a young woman's body or else the plumage of a humming bird hovering over a flower.

Working backwards from 10-16 ft and imagining observing the many objects from just 10-18", what lens can do this?

I assume that one needs ~ 4 lp/mm for the impression of perfect sharpness. So we can set the magnification to 20x for 8x10 for a nominal 12 ft high print. That would seem to ask for 80 lp optics! However, Schneider optics might be in the range of 20-40 lp/mm. Maybe 40lp/mm in a uniform image circle would be just fine!

That's why I asked about aerial lenses! So many own them, but besides the Aero Ektar, one does not often see work done with them! Are they mostly owned as trophy paperweights?

Asher

Struan Gray
17-Jun-2011, 12:20
Asher, your application sounds perfect for a scanning or rotating panoramic camera. You get cylindrical perspective for free, and the lens only needs to cover the short dimension of the image, which boosts your chances of ultimate sharpness.

If you must use an aerial model, there were prism-scan cameras with Biogons inside which imaged onto MF film. Otherwise your best bet in analogue would be to join the Circut brigade.

But. Were it me, I would look seriously at the use of a scanning back in panoramic mode. Jim Collum has shown some great examples here in the forum.

EdWorkman
17-Jun-2011, 12:21
Sounds as if you need a very large DOF
If that's a problem Mr. Scheimflug can't solve could stitching solve it as Dan suggested?
More specifially, a shot for the folks plus a shot for the architecture- two different and more limited DOF planes. I'm still trying to think of the solution as one of planes, in the above planes assembled to approximate 3D

John Schneider
17-Jun-2011, 12:28
...If you must use an aerial model, there were prism-scan cameras with Biogons inside which imaged onto MF film...

KA-56 and later KA-71 (as memory serves me). I've got one in the garage, but it seems too much effort and too little apparent benefit to mod'ing it for land use off a terrestrial power supply.

Asher Kelman
17-Jun-2011, 12:40
Asher, your application sounds perfect for a scanning or rotating panoramic camera. You get cylindrical perspective for free, and the lens only needs to cover the short dimension of the image, which boosts your chances of ultimate sharpness.

If you must use an aerial model, there were prism-scan cameras with Biogons inside which imaged onto MF film. Otherwise your best bet in analogue would be to join the Circut brigade.

But. Were it me, I would look seriously at the use of a scanning back in panoramic mode. Jim Collum has shown some great examples here in the forum.

Struan,

I'm a great fan of Jim's work both his beach scenes with the scanning back and his mixed media Platinum prints color pigment prints, which are also spectacular.

The scanning back gives the resolution and contrast needed but anything moving will be lengthened or shortened. Imagine many people at once then might be difficult. However, one could have retakes and blend the best of each. So it's very practical.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Asher

Asher Kelman
17-Jun-2011, 12:46
KA-56 and later KA-71 (as memory serves me). I've got one in the garage, but it seems too much effort and too little apparent benefit to mod'ing it for land use off a terrestrial power supply.

John,

It's so exciting to have one of these magnificent cameras. However, few folk get to making pictures. There must be payoff if one actually went ahead with your planned project.

I already have a magnificent portable battery system I use to power 3 columns of Lumedyne flashes for lighting an entire building. I can get thousands of crank amps at 12 volts. I would just need to add a transformer for 24 volts or for AC. So that problem is solved.

Asher

Dan Fromm
17-Jun-2011, 13:26
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but if I remember correctly the KA-56 and -71 and the similar KB-18 and and KA-66 all shot 2.25" x 9.40" on 70 mm film and all have 3"/2.8 lenses that cover 6x6.

Charlie Barringer had half a drawer of Zeiss Planars from these cameras. He advised me strongly not to buy one from Surplus Shed because they were in barrel and couldn't be put in shutter. And of course there was the coverage issue.

If you want to find out for yourself, Surplus Shed still has KB-18a and -18b and KA-66 cameras on offer. If I bought one I'd get an -18b 'cos it has a Fairchild lens.

Thing is, Asher, none of these cameras will get you to the goal you've laid out earlier in this discussion, not even one fitted with the best of Fairchild's own lenses for them.

In addition, the problem with using these things isn't making a power supply that will deliver the right combinations of voltages and frequencies at the amperage needed. That's easy. The real problem is replacing the control electronics that were mounted in the aircraft. At any rate, that's my excuse for never trying to use any of the F-135 cameras I bought.

Dan Fromm
17-Jun-2011, 15:08
Asher, read Emmanuel's comment in this http://www.galerie-photo.info/forumgp/read.php?2,87570 discussion. If you don't read French, use Google Translate.

EdWorkman
17-Jun-2011, 15:37
GeeWhiz
Those rotating lens cameras have TEENY lenses
Don't you really want a lens for LF?
Something for 9x9 from U-2 or satellite work if you want resolution.
I've always had a feeling that cameras for bombays and recon planes could not have been extremely good as those were too expendable- no definite information, just a look at the small number of missions that were accomplished before crashing, and the tremendous number of aircrew killed. Cold war designs must have been better [and fewer and LOTS more expensive to manufacture]. Combat type cameras had to record explosions and big things like arshalling yards. U-2s and satellites look for trucks from a lot higher .

John Schneider
17-Jun-2011, 22:38
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but if I remember correctly the KA-56 and -71 and the similar KB-18 and and KA-66 all shot 2.25" x 9.40" on 70 mm film and all have 3"/2.8 lenses that cover 6x6.

Yes there were the 70mm rotating lens aerial cameras with the 3" Zeiss Planar lens; I had a KA-18A. There also were earlier ones that used a 3" Zeiss Biogon and 5" aerial roll film. I'm pretty sure about the designations I gave, but my wife's car is parked tight to the shelf where it lives in a huge box, so I can't pull it out to check the data plate. But it certainly is a 5" wide rollfilm camera with a Biogon.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
18-Jun-2011, 01:55
Well Asher,
despite Dan's surely technically great and discouraging comments it IS doable nevertheless and it has already been done (as I know from a friend of mine who actually did on a 8x10" using such hires lenses, who got it from me). I was searching through my files and found some reference showing the camera/lens and some results); here is teh story of Mr Flint (different guy btw.):
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/digitalcameras/news/2005/02/66498

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/bp-a_f.jpg

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/bp-f_f.jpg

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/bp-e_f.jpg

(c) Graham Flint, wired.com

Asher Kelman
18-Jun-2011, 04:01
Well Klaus, my good friend, you found my camera!

I wish I could get the lens, LOL!

I think that instead of using 9" film, one used 5" film or glass plates, one could employ a modern lens and have single vacuum film holder. The focus and use of digital camera for aiming would be the same.

Asher

Dan Fromm
18-Jun-2011, 06:29
Um, er, ah, the only part of the Gigapixel camera that flew is the film magazine. Everything else is custom made.

And the panoramic cameras mentioned have fixed lenses. They scan the scene using a rotating prism.

John, you're right, I was mistaken. The KA-56 shot panoramas on 5" film with a 3" lens. But the KA-71 used 70 mm.

Asher Kelman
18-Jun-2011, 11:01
Um, er, ah, the only part of the Gigapixel camera that flew is the film magazine. Everything else is custom made.

And the panoramic cameras mentioned have fixed lenses. They scan the scene using a rotating prism.

John, you're right, I was mistaken. The KA-56 shot panoramas on 5" film with a 3" lens. But the KA-71 used 70 mm.

Still there are a lot of great learning points from the exercise. What was amazing was how critical focus has to be within a fraction of a mm even at f22 with their lens. The aerial film is impressive too. Is that available in other formats or in 5" rolls?

This (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270745375817&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_662wt_1141) camera, with a vacuum back would then not appear too far fetched!

How on earth one focuses, now that I've read of the MTF loss to sub-mm errors in focus? I'd have thought there would be a long throw focus cone and one would get the focus by a golfing laser rangefinder.

Those side knobs are not for focus but simply for support by a heavy stand for land and cave mapping.

Asher

Dan Fromm
18-Jun-2011, 11:55
Asher, typically an aerial camera lens is collimated to the camera on an optical bench and then locked in place in its cone. When the cone is switched to another camera, the lens should be recollimated to the new body. I've seen evidence of recollimation on a 12"/4 TTH Telephoto in an F-139 cone.

In the case of the F135's 38/4.5 Biogons, focus is adjusted by a shim that sits behind the lens. Each of the 20 38/4.5 Biogons I bought had its own shim marked with the lens' serial number and thickness within .01 mm. AGI, not Zeiss, collimated the lenses and made the shims.

As far as I know CZJ cameras for photogrammetry, like the one in the link you posted and like my late friend Charlie's SMK 120s, are fixed focus with the lens collimated to the camera by the factory.

I've bought a number of lenses for Vinten F95 and AGI F139 in their cones. The lenses screwed into the cones, were collimated and then locked in place with radial set screws that were glued in. Aircraft vibrate a lot.

And I have a lens for Omera 30/31 that came in its cone. It screwed in and out of its cone freely but there were spring-loaded locks for "infinity with visible light" and "infinity with infrared."

If 8x10 with a good grade of lens won't let you enlarge as much as you'd like a smaller format with a wonder lens won't do either. If you need to enlarge more than possible with 8x10, go 16 x 20. Get a Lotus camera with power focus and start shooting. Use an Apo-Artar, Apo-Ronar, or dialyte type Apo-Nikkor or perhaps an Apo Tele Xenar.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
20-Jun-2011, 08:17
My friend used a aerial Topogon lens to build his 8x10 Gigapixel camera, but other than that it was very similar to the one I mentioned above (except that he did not go public with his results). I also understood Asher's question in such a way that he was looking for a solution, not for a list of problems. So sorry if I spoiled the pitty party ;)

Dan Fromm
20-Jun-2011, 10:11
Klaus, there are many ways to achieve Asher's goal, huge prints with fine detail that will bear close scrutiny. Some better, others worse. Most of the ways he's suggested so far won't work at all or are very hard to implement.

I have no idea what field your doctorate is in or when or where you earned it. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you were educated in Germany. I've had one experience with postgraduate education in Germany. In the summer of 1970 I spent a week, at Karl Brunner's request, in the University of Konstanz' monetary economics seminar. Karl's students seemed excessively polite. Much better trained in mathematics than their US counterparts but less willing to think about the meaning of what they'd learned.

Prof. Dr. Brunner was normally a ferocious critic, made the point that substantive criticism was always helpful. Politeness in seminars seems, alas, to be the norm in most universities. While I was at Wharton Econometrics I visited the UPenn econometrics seminar from time to time, asked hard questions and wouldn't put up with evasion. This didn't always go over well.

Asher Kelman
20-Jun-2011, 11:24
Klaus and Dan,

Things are moving fast in aerial photography. Today I read the following:

“Gorgon Stare” technology that can capture live video of an entire city — but that requires 2,000 analysts to process the data feeds from a single drone, compared with 19 analysts per drone today." Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/world/20drones.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp)

However, I just need a lens for 8x10 or 5x7, whichever is more $$ and weight practical to end up with 16ft, (~ 5 meters high), and detail at 25cm.

So it's a matter of cost and whats' available in a setup that can be moved in a station wagon and set up 100 meters from the vehicle.

The lens has to be available and have a straightforward engineering path using available film, color and B&W.

The larger the film, up to 11x14, the easier it is to get the details from it by scanning. I have a Topaz II which I'm in the process of trying to bring alive.

It seems I need 24 x magnification from 8x10 and that would mean 24 x4 lp/mm= 100 lp/mm - 160 lp/mm

Thanks for your help.

Asher

John Schneider
21-Jun-2011, 09:46
FYI (and FWIW), here's my 5" aerial panoramic camera (rotating dove prism, 3" Zeiss Biogon). Note that this is just the camera, the magazine is just as big (and stored in another box). This is an amazing piece of optical and mechanical design, but IMO far too much work to adapt to terrestrial use in all but very rare occasions.

Not shown is the original yellow filter, which is three panes of optical glass that wrap around the prism about where the protective cover is in the first pic.

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.

Asher Kelman
21-Jun-2011, 10:30
My friend used a aerial Topogon lens to build his 8x10 Gigapixel camera, but other than that it was very similar to the one I mentioned above (except that he did not go public with his results). I also understood Asher's question in such a way that he was looking for a solution, not for a list of problems. So sorry if I spoiled the pitty party ;)

It's hard to judge just from the name and the information I've gathered so which aerial lenses can be pulled out of their camera and then repurposed fitted to rail or other system for a LF camera. One lens might have good optical characteristics but be too hard to get it to the form one wants to do routine work.

If one know that the lens is a barrel of such and such diameter and other physical details, one can start to think about how to mount such a lens. So I'm in the dark, apart from knowing the names of the lenses.

It would be wonderful to see examples of how folk approached repurposing lenses such as these. Thomas posts his lenses for sale but again there's little detail. I can see, however, that the Lamegon is at least available in a barrel, free of the camera.

Asher

PolarBear1973
23-Jun-2011, 17:13
These seem to give a lot of sharpness for the investment . . .

The investment for me is $0. Someone found this Kodak Aerostigmat 12" f/5 with cone at a garage sale and gave it to me for free.

I taped it with an old 5x7 back that I made with some homemade bellows just to see if it works. It focuses fine. The camera allows 5 feet to infinity focus. Had to make an extra support for the lens which is heavy.

Since there is no shutter, I just need to find my fedora and I'll try it out. Maybe this weekend.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/DSC_1479.jpg

Asher Kelman
23-Jun-2011, 17:16
The investment for me is $0. Someone found this Kodak Aerostigmat 12" f/5 with cone at a garage sale and gave it to me for free.

I taped it with an old 5x7 filmholder (holder) that I made with some homemade bellows just to see if it works. It focuses fine. The camera allows 5 feet to infinity focus. Had to make an extra support for the lens which is heavy.

Since there is no shutter, I just need to find my fedora and I'll try it out. Maybe this weekend.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/DSC_1479.jpg

Now that's a camera, LOL!

Can't wait to see some pictures! What do you think the resolution is going to turn out to be?

Asher

PolarBear1973
23-Jun-2011, 17:28
Now that's a camera, LOL!

Can't wait to see some pictures! What do you think the resolution is going to turn out to be?

Asher

Not sure yet. We'll see. I have solved the shutter problem though:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/DSC_1480.jpg

Dan Fromm
24-Jun-2011, 02:11
Cute. Clever use of a free lens.

toolbox
24-Jun-2011, 09:32
The investment for me is $0. Someone found this Kodak Aerostigmat 12" f/5 with cone at a garage sale and gave it to me for free.

I taped it with an old 5x7 back that I made with some homemade bellows just to see if it works. It focuses fine. The camera allows 5 feet to infinity focus. Had to make an extra support for the lens which is heavy.

Since there is no shutter, I just need to find my fedora and I'll try it out. Maybe this weekend.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/DSC_1479.jpg

Hey, that's the same one I have! Well, mine is mounted on board with a Packard shutter so I won't need the hat... I still haven't had time to try it out (and won't at least for another week). Love to see what results you get!

Asher Kelman
24-Jun-2011, 11:04
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
24-Jun-2011, 11:54
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
24-Jun-2011, 12:15
[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
24-Jun-2011, 12:38
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
24-Jun-2011, 12:45
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 :eek: 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
24-Jun-2011, 15:41
Finally got a chance to try out the Frankencamera:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/DSC_1483.jpg

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:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/BreakTime-1.jpg

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:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/hatdetail.jpg

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
24-Jun-2011, 16:30
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 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270745375817&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_662wt_1141) or here (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270745374959&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_500wt_1156).
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
24-Jun-2011, 17:40
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=cVy1Ms43fFYC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=aviotar+%22wild+heerbrugg%22&source=bl&ots=wH9Ort-LJV&sig=CQ83hxZMnoPT4txxXweewbYvSR8&hl=en&ei=YCoFTsjzHemz0AGMrqDJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=aviotar%20%22wild%20heerbrugg%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=FSMn1T1B-LEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22super+lamegon%22&source=bl&ots=SF_exEKg2D&sig=6HX8P90VyHulWQe9xJ3-U5VAJ7Q&hl=en&ei=PS0FTtAW4eDRAdqh4cIO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22super%20lamegon%22&f=false

Asher Kelman
24-Jun-2011, 18:27
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
24-Jun-2011, 19:47
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:



http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/hatdetail.jpg



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

Asher

PolarBear1973
25-Jun-2011, 03:13
This is a great picture in itself. Looks like you just buried a good friend and that's his hat! Impressive!

Asher

Thanks! Here's another shot I took yesterday with the same camera:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/devilsholeAerostigmat-1.jpg

12 second exposure at f/32.

Jay Decker
25-Jun-2011, 09:33
http://monkeytumble.com/tmp/RanchHydrant.jpg

Water Trough Hydrant

8x10 Kodak 2D
Air Ministry 14" f5.6 TTH Cooke Aviar - Wide Open
8x10 Efke 25
Bickleton, WA

Asher Kelman
25-Jun-2011, 10:34
http://monkeytumble.com/tmp/RanchHydrant.jpg

Water Trough Hydrant

8x10 Kodak 2D
Air Ministry 14" f5.6 TTH Cooke Aviar - Wide Open
8x10 Efke 25
Bickleton, WA

Well this is marvelous, Jay! I'd have thought Jim Galli took this picture, but there's no swirl! I wonder how this would be on a portrait. The DOF is perfect for the faucet.

Stopped down, for a building, I wonder what that could give.

Was there any possibility of movements had you wished?

Asher

Dan Fromm
25-Jun-2011, 11:13
Per the VM, used on 5"x5". Aviars cover a little more than their focal lengths sp the 14"/5.6 should be good for 8x10. Uncoated, flary, in my tests sharpest wide open.

Asher, do your own homework. Get a copy of the VM and consult it before using Google. Use Google before asking questions.

Jay Decker
25-Jun-2011, 12:09
Well this is marvelous, Jay! I'd have thought Jim Galli took this picture, but there's no swirl! I wonder how this would be on a portrait. The DOF is perfect for the faucet.

Thanks Asher. This lens is a Jim Galli hand me down. You can see the images that Jim took with this lens earlier in this thread here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=739536&postcount=8). I purchased the lens from Jim for two aesthetic characteristics, out of focus rendering and internal flare (yes, I intentionally wanted a lens with flare). More specifically, I intend to shoot some back lit portraits with this lens to take advantage of the OOF rendering and flare.


Stopped down, for a building, I wonder what that could give.

Was there any possibility of movements had you wished?

The image below has a development issue, but was taken with the same lens stopped down to f/11. And, it had quite a bit of vertical rise (the perimeter of the image is vignetted in image editing software). It was pretty windy, and I think there is a little motion blur in the image.

http://monkeytumble.com/tmp/WindMill.jpg

Asher Kelman
25-Jun-2011, 15:32
Thanks Asher. This lens is a Jim Galli hand me down. You can see the images that Jim took with this lens earlier in this thread here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=739536&postcount=8). I purchased the lens from Jim for two aesthetic characteristics, out of focus rendering and internal flare (yes, I intentionally wanted a lens with flare). More specifically, I intend to shoot some back lit portraits with this lens to take advantage of the OOF rendering and flare.



The image below has a development issue, but was taken with the same lens stopped down to f/11. And, it had quite a bit of vertical rise (the perimeter of the image is vignetted in image editing software). It was pretty windy, and I think there is a little motion blur in the image.

http://monkeytumble.com/tmp/WindMill.jpg

Jay,

I'm so glad you have that lens. I considered it too. I am also taken with the lenses that work well for art, opened up. What's important, more than descriptions, is actual experience and these pictures. Both the vade mecum and original descriptions are informative, but nothing beats the actual delivered photograph. You'll have a lot of fun with this!

Thanks for sharing.

Asher

genotypewriter
9-Aug-2011, 20:27
This (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270745375817&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_662wt_1141) camera, with a vacuum back would then not appear too far fetched!

Asher
At that price, hope the quality is different from what the lens name suggests ;)




However, I just need a lens for 8x10 or 5x7, whichever is more $$ and weight practical to end up with 16ft, (~ 5 meters high), and detail at 25cm.

So it's a matter of cost and whats' available in a setup that can be moved in a station wagon and set up 100 meters from the vehicle.

The lens has to be available and have a straightforward engineering path using available film, color and B&W.

The larger the film, up to 11x14, the easier it is to get the details from it by scanning. I have a Topaz II which I'm in the process of trying to bring alive.

It seems I need 24 x magnification from 8x10 and that would mean 24 x4 lp/mm= 100 lp/mm - 160 lp/mm

Thanks for your help.

Asher
Pardon me if someone has already pointed this out but this intrigues me to do some numbers...

If you want 300dpi or around 12 lines/mm on a 5 meter (or 5000mm) reproduction, you're looking at a:

12 * 5000 = 60000 line image (say on the long side).

To get 60000 lines from a 8x10" sheet of film (assuming you can get the whole 10" or 254mm), you need a lens that can resolve:

60000 / 254 = ~236 lines per mm.

Now let's calculate the minimum f number you need to get that resolution without being limited the airy disk size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk):

First for blue (say 450nm) light:
(1/236) / (1.22 * 0.00045) = f/7.7

Then for red (say 680nm) light:
(1/236) / (1.22 * 0.00068) = f/5.1

So you need to find yourself a 8x10 lens that produces 236 lines per mm across the frame at apertures not smaller than f/5-8... stopping the lens down further means you can't produce that many lines. If it's a 5x7 the f numbers would need to be even smaller.

It also makes me wonder how much you're going to have in focus across the frame on a 8x10 at f/5.1 because of the DOF. You'll have to shoot things that are very very far away.

You must also look in to how film impacts all these. Just to put things in to perspective, you're talking about getting 48 megapixels worth from a 35mm slide/neg of film. Which we all know is way past what we can comfortably get out of slide film. In fact, 24MP from a 35mm slide is like the practical limit even with drum scanning. Resolution capabilities aside, don't forget that chunky film grain either!

Just some food for thought :)

GTW

Asher Kelman
9-Aug-2011, 21:50
Thanks TW for your helpful look at the challenge. I decided it's simpler for me to use the Camera Obscura I'm also building, as I can use any film size and test any lens and no film holders are needed, just a vacuum board. From this I'll determine what the lenses can do and then I'll get a mobile version of the right size LF/ULF camera for making giant enlargements that can be viewed up close for detail.

I've now a good series of lenses and after these are mounted on lens boards I'll start testing. I'm writing my progress here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14456). I'm starting with Cibachrome, (ie Ilfochrome) paper at 3 ISO, but at the same time, will also test faster film to research this different project for giant enlargements.

Asher

Superzeiss
12-Aug-2011, 06:32
genotypewriter mixed up " lines per mm " and " line PAIRS per mm ".

Imagine 250 black lines on one mm, your millimeter will be pretty black . . .

That is why there has to follow one white line on one black line.

In this case, you have 250 black lines, and 250 white lines, and the width of one

line is 1/500 of a millimeter. In other words : 500 dots per mm, exmakes 12,700 dpi.

So divide GTW's math by 2 . . . .

The sweet F-stop for Ashers project ( to print 5000mm at 300dpi from 250mm negative at ) is approx. f- 12,5 .

Best wishes, Thomas

Jay Decker
4-May-2012, 18:41
http://monkeytumble.com/tmp/SharonAviar01.jpg

Sharon

8x10 Kodak 2D
Air Ministry 14" f5.6 TTH Cooke Aviar - Wide Open
8x10 Efke 25 in 510-Pyro
Kennewick, WA

buggz
5-May-2012, 05:58
Amen, I had a hard time when showing all my soft pastel images in a popular forum, what little I post.
Everyone there seemed to like harsh contrast, saturated, over sharpened images.
Shrug...
Thus my humble start into LF.
I really like the diversity in this forum.
I love all the information and learning new things and new perspectives.


Better than modern...........

Worse than modern.............

Some of us are working to a different goal than 68 line pairs in a millimeter. An uncoated Cooke Aviar with 8 air glass interfaces is not something that wins in a comparison to a multi-coated plasmat. But there are some who are bored to tears with multi-coated Plasmat look. So better & worse are highly relative terms to the user's intent.

Each lens must be used to make actual pictures and then evaluated for what it does or doesn't bring to the table relative to the user's vision, not line pairs per millimeter.

Process lenses and aerial lenses are not the first place I look for what I want a lens to do, but there are some exceptions. An f2.5 or 2.9 lens might have something for a 4X5 user that normally can't get that shallow a depth of field any other way. And the Aviar does have a pleasing look.........to me.

europanorama
3-Jun-2016, 20:01
Dan,

What an encyclopedic knowledge you have collected! I atually read through your entire adventure and wonder how on earth your family dealt with all the arrivals!


Joseph,

That hernia giving lens is a sculpture!



Jim,

Yours are beautiful! I like the images and the characteristic soft periphery you are infamous for! Shows one of the 2 great values of these aerial lenses: wide open for art or portraits or even landscape. You have excelled here! How heavy is heavy? Is this bigger than a Visual Quality? This might be fun to shoot with.


Klaus,

Here's my hypothesis. "There might be an deal combination of aerial or survey lens and camera format with film that could deliver exceptional resolution and color in one of the common Large camera formats."

Obviously, using 8x10 and a great modern lens I already can acquire a lot of detail. But going down to just 5x7 where some of the better aerial or surveying lenses might cover, it could be that one ends up with more detail.



So, Guys,

Where is the sweet spot for the most refined aerial lenses for landscape or macro with 8x10, 5x7 or 4x5 format that can be tamed to a practical relationship with the camera for the highest resolution for available B&W and or color film film in that format.

I see Lumnars in a yellow 5x7 surveying camera minus the surveying frame that are asking $4800 or so!

Using a glass plate is hardly practical for these shots to match up with the precision surfaces, unless the plates are readily available. Same with 5" rollfilm to match the lens MTF. What's practical. I have no problem getting a 5x7 back or else a second camera if the lens could delver stellar performance.

The guy who sells the Jena and the like aerial and survey lenses appears to be nice interesting fellow and dedicated but I have not found any pictures to match the selling prices and there's no Jena or Czech Republic factory to call and get brochures, LOL! Who has had these lenses. Why are there no pictures? Why only one eBay seller of the Lamogen and most of the relatives?

A pity Zeiss Jena closed! What a huge loss!

Asher
I have a small CD showing old russian cams which i had never seen elsewhere also not in udsscameraforum. got it from KMZ officially. But they only show no lists. and specifications.

europanorama
3-Jun-2016, 21:03
Asher, your application sounds perfect for a scanning or rotating panoramic camera. You get cylindrical perspective for free, and the lens only needs to cover the short dimension of the image, which boosts your chances of ultimate sharpness.

If you must use an aerial model, there were prism-scan cameras with Biogons inside which imaged onto MF film. Otherwise your best bet in analogue would be to join the Circut brigade.

But. Were it me, I would look seriously at the use of a scanning back in panoramic mode. Jim Collum has shown some great examples here in the forum.
do you mean messkammer-kameras? These are multiple cameras with prisms which are aimed to get overlapping images. information from zeiss-manager.

Dan Fromm
4-Jun-2016, 06:42
do you mean messkammer-kameras? These are multiple cameras with prisms which are aimed to get overlapping images. information from zeiss-manager.

Pardon me for jumping in. Absolutely not. No.

Struan was referring to cameras like the Fairchild KB-18. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gnr9P9VYLg and http://www.chancefac.net/fac_book/0-2_dash_one/kb18_strike_cam.htm He was not referring to cameras used for photogrammetry. Aerial cameras used for photogrammetry use the aircraft's motion to get the displacement needed for stereo photography.

I don't know where he came up with the idea of "prism-scan cameras with Biogons inside."

Jac@stafford.net
4-Jun-2016, 08:12
I will not show my 'best pictures' using the few aerial lenses I have because there is no remarkable quality attributable to the lenses for earth-bound (not celestial) photography. If I were to do aerial photography I still would not use them in any camera but the one built around the particular aerial lens. A bit of funny was trying to figure out how to work without the Réseau plate built into a camera. That curiosity went away quickly.

To the best of my knowledge, aerial survey lenses are tested wide-open regardless of whether they have a diaphragm. There is where some lenses shine, in particular a late Biogon. IMHO! But I doubt they perform better than later biogons. (One possible difference is with the 3" Pacific Optical which has a rear lens larger than 4x5 thus has little appreciable fall-off when used over 4x5, but 'better' aesthetically it is not)

I worked at Upper Heyford Air Force Base with American and some British forces (http://www.digoliardi.net/upper_heyford_1965.jpg) when it was an air-recon base in the Sixties. (I won't tell which is me in that goofy picture.) A good friend was an aerial photo technician so I saw some of the terrific-looking gear used in the Voodoo RF-101 and U2. When I saw the photo interpreters (PIs) at work I had the revelation that changed my view of the utility of very expensive optics for recon work - humans viewing stereographs through simple optical binoculars did the hard work. No machine at the time could do the kind of work experienced PIs did. Pursuing lp/mm remained an interest for some time until it was clear that it was a curiosity and a waste of time for me.

My friend's wife was a local school teacher and he got a picture of her through the window of her building from a Voodo test flight. If you were not clued into what you were looking at it was really obscure. :)

choiliefan
6-Jun-2016, 14:31
Groovy Jaguar Mk VII...