World's largest camera

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:21:23 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
Steve Wolfe wrote:
[Pat had written:]
Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
in the story.

Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)

Well, not exactly, but the word negative was in quotes, as in:


"The photographers are using a nearly 31-by-111-foot piece of white
fabric covered in 20 gallons of light-sensitive emulsion as the "negative."

After exposing the fabric for up to 10 days, they will develop it in a
huge tub made of pool siding, using 200 gallons of black-and-white
developer solution and 600 gallons of fixer."

This after exposing for "up to" ? 10 days more or less. All calculations
done on a Bowmar Brain.....

Is the uncertainty to do with how much sunshine there is in the period?

That would be my guess. I doubt anyone makes a light meter that can tie
into the National Weather Service forecast database. I assume that
they'll have some test strips down near the bottom, and when the
estimated exposure time comes near, take down a strip and develop it
and see how it looks. Sort of like the photographic equivalent of a
pop-up meat thermometer.

It seemed like a really long exposure, but then I thought about just how
much light there would be per unit area of emulsion.

Neat cite. Thanks.

My pleasure.

-dms

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:53:10 GMT, aussie bongo wrote:

Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
in the story.

Maybe they're pessimists?

after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??

Whoosh

Nope. Optimists aren't known for embracing negatives.

On 15 Jun 2006 11:53:13 -0700, wrote:


Daniel Silevitch wrote:

Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2834107.story

The camera is an old aircraft hangar with a pinhole aperture. The "film"
is a 31x111 foot piece of fabric coated with emulsion.

Estimated exposure time: 10 days

And then there's this bit:

"The photographers joke that they also are making the world's largest
disposable camera. When they are done, the hangar will be torn down."

-dms

I vaguely remember reading years ago about a special camera
built for a museum, with an image size 6 feet across and a
focal length of either 6 or 12 ft (I could be wrong about
the specs). It was intended for photographing priceless old
masters. Anybody remember that ?
I think the electronics industry, particularly in Integrated Circuit
design used fairly large cameras in their chip lay out work.

I remember a museum that had a camera built into the back of a van.
They aligned it by moving the van. They used it for outdoor scenes
behind displays.


wrote:
Daniel Silevitch wrote:

Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2834107.story

The camera is an old aircraft hangar with a pinhole aperture. The "film"
is a 31x111 foot piece of fabric coated with emulsion.

Estimated exposure time: 10 days

And then there's this bit:

"The photographers joke that they also are making the world's largest
disposable camera. When they are done, the hangar will be torn down."

-dms

I vaguely remember reading years ago about a special camera
built for a museum, with an image size 6 feet across and a
focal length of either 6 or 12 ft (I could be wrong about
the specs). It was intended for photographing priceless old
masters. Anybody remember that ?

Yeah, stand in front of it for 2 or 3 days and see if you appear in the
picture

Probably not much to see, just a sealed up building and a small hole.
But if you opened the door and peeked inside ....




Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
I live about 20 miles away from El Toro, and drive past it everyday on
my way to and from work. I'll have to see about stopping by and checking
it out.

In article ,
says...
Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2834107.story

The camera is an old aircraft hangar with a pinhole aperture. The "film"
is a 31x111 foot piece of fabric coated with emulsion.

Estimated exposure time: 10 days

And then there's this bit:

"The photographers joke that they also are making the world's largest
disposable camera. When they are done, the hangar will be torn down."

-dms

"Daniel Silevitch" wrote in message
.. .
Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2834107.story

The camera is an old aircraft hangar with a pinhole aperture. The "film"
is a 31x111 foot piece of fabric coated with emulsion.

Estimated exposure time: 10 days

And then there's this bit:

"The photographers joke that they also are making the world's largest
disposable camera. When they are done, the hangar will be torn down."

How many megapixels is that???

wrote:


Daniel Silevitch wrote:

Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...50157jun15,1,2
834107.story

The camera is an old aircraft hangar with a pinhole aperture. The
"film" is a 31x111 foot piece of fabric coated with emulsion.

Estimated exposure time: 10 days

And then there's this bit:

"The photographers joke that they also are making the world's largest
disposable camera. When they are done, the hangar will be torn down."

-dms

I vaguely remember reading years ago about a special camera
built for a museum, with an image size 6 feet across and a
focal length of either 6 or 12 ft (I could be wrong about
the specs). It was intended for photographing priceless old
masters. Anybody remember that ?


Did a tour of a USGS site once. Guy says let's go see the big camera and
leads us into a large empty room. Somebody asks the obvious and he tells
us we're standing in it. Then takes us out the other side to see the
lens, copy board, etc.

There's also a very nice camera obscura near Bristol, England that will
hold, IIRC, more than 20 people. And all with a view.

wrote:

: I vaguely remember reading years ago about a special camera
: built for a museum, with an image size 6 feet across and a
: focal length of either 6 or 12 ft (I could be wrong about
: the specs). It was intended for photographing priceless old
: masters. Anybody remember that ?

I remember a museum making a camera that would doccument huge tapestries
with resolutions down to individual treads at 1:1 magnification. But they
were using a large format digital camera that they then stitched the
images together to create a 1:1 high res digital image. The problem they
were running into was that since the entire process could take up to
several days to complete, heating and cooling of the fabric (due to the
lights) tended to make the tapestry creep slightly, making it nearly
impossible to get accurate stitches of the adjacent images. The final
stitching process took several supercomputers multi weeks to produce. And
the idea was dropped as too expensive to continue for the hundreds of
tapestries they desired to image.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:53:10 GMT, aussie bongo wrote:


Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
in the story.

Maybe they're pessimists?

after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??


Whoosh

Nope. Optimists aren't known for embracing negatives.

Thank you - I hoped SOMEone would get it

On 6/15/06 10:42 AM, in article
, "Pat"
wrote:

... to be followed by the world largest enlarger ....?


Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
in the story.

Because Kodachrome only does 35mm?

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...un15,1,2834107.
story

The camera is an old aircraft hangar with a pinhole aperture. The "film"
is a 31x111 foot piece of fabric coated with emulsion.

Estimated exposure time: 10 days

And then there's this bit:

"The photographers joke that they also are making the world's largest
disposable camera. When they are done, the hangar will be torn down."

-dms