Re: Think Your Camera is Advaced?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. Alan Smithee <> wrote:
    > Isn't it time for electronic pellicle mirrors in slr's now?


    > The Canon 1N RS could shoot at 10fps using something called 35mm film in
    > 1995. Impressive? Na. The Canon F-1 was capable of 9fps in the 70's.


    9fps ... impressive?
    Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    That's impressive. And was duly increased to 10.000fps.

    The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps. On film.

    And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    speeds of millions(!) of shots/s. On film.

    9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 1, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 01:21:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    > Alan Smithee <> wrote:
    >> Isn't it time for electronic pellicle mirrors in slr's now?

    >
    >> The Canon 1N RS could shoot at 10fps using something called 35mm film in
    >> 1995. Impressive? Na. The Canon F-1 was capable of 9fps in the 70's.

    >
    > 9fps ... impressive?
    > Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    > That's impressive. And was duly increased to 10.000fps.
    >
    > The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps. On film.
    >
    > And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    > speeds of millions(!) of shots/s. On film.
    >
    > 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?


    Not to the military, no. But to consumers, quite so!
     
    ASAAR, Jan 1, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 01:21:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    >> That's impressive. And was duly increased to 10.000fps.


    >> The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps. On film.


    >> And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    >> speeds of millions(!) of shots/s. On film.


    >> 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?


    > Not to the military, no.


    Nor to civilian research, nor to phone companies (Bell used above
    named 1000fps camera to study relay bounce, then upgraded it
    to 5.000 fps), not even to cheap camcorders (which run faster
    than 9fps all day).

    > But to consumers, quite so!


    If you want consumer high fps, go look at Casio's EX-FH20 or EX-F1.
    That's what consumers can buy today. 9fps? Not impressive.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 1, 2009
    #3
  4. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:52:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    >>> 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?

    >
    >> Not to the military, no.

    >
    > Nor to civilian research, nor to phone companies (Bell used above
    > named 1000fps camera to study relay bounce, then upgraded it
    > to 5.000 fps), not even to cheap camcorders (which run faster
    > than 9fps all day).
    >
    >> But to consumers, quite so!

    >
    > If you want consumer high fps, go look at Casio's EX-FH20 or EX-F1.
    > That's what consumers can buy today. 9fps? Not impressive.


    You've been reading too selectively. I've probably mentioned
    those Casio cameras more here than everyone else (combined!).
    Unfortunately, their build quality and AF performance is about as
    poor as it gets, or I might have one of them on my camera shelf.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 1, 2009
    #4
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    frank Guest

    On Dec 31 2008, 6:21 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:
    > Alan Smithee <> wrote:
    > > Isn't it time for electronic pellicle mirrors in slr's now?
    > > The Canon 1N RS could shoot at 10fps using something called 35mm film in
    > > 1995.  Impressive?  Na.  The Canon F-1 was capable of 9fps in the 70's.

    >
    > 9fps ... impressive?
    > Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    > That's impressive.  And was duly increased to 10.000fps.
    >
    > The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps.  On film.
    >
    > And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    > speeds of millions(!) of shots/s.  On film.
    >
    > 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    I've heard what was interesting was the amount of 'dust' that would
    occur in the film take up reel once the film ran out and it flapped
    until it was shut down.

    Rochester Institute of Technology has people who worked or wrote on
    this stuff. A few profs still did lab work with students on this
    stuff.

    Some of the high speed stuff before they had computer simulations was
    awesome. Then again , some of the Computational Flight Dynamics stuff
    off of mainframes was pretty good, especially some of the airflow
    studies. Massive computational requirements.
     
    frank, Jan 2, 2009
    #5
  6. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:43:46 -0600, RichA wrote:

    >> Not to the military, no. But to consumers, quite so!

    >
    > You mean consumers don't image above ground atomic bomb tests?
    > When did this happen?


    Quite some time ago, but I wanted no truck with those loonies.
    Not I, no. I prefer not to become somebody else's vaporware.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 2, 2009
    #6
  7. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    J. Clarke Guest

    frank wrote:
    > On Dec 31 2008, 6:21 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >> Alan Smithee <> wrote:
    >>> Isn't it time for electronic pellicle mirrors in slr's now?
    >>> The Canon 1N RS could shoot at 10fps using something called 35mm
    >>> film in 1995. Impressive? Na. The Canon F-1 was capable of 9fps in
    >>> the 70's.

    >>
    >> 9fps ... impressive?
    >> Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    >> That's impressive. And was duly increased to 10.000fps.
    >>
    >> The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps. On film.
    >>
    >> And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    >> speeds of millions(!) of shots/s. On film.
    >>
    >> 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?
    >>
    >> -Wolfgang

    >
    > I've heard what was interesting was the amount of 'dust' that would
    > occur in the film take up reel once the film ran out and it flapped
    > until it was shut down.
    >
    > Rochester Institute of Technology has people who worked or wrote on
    > this stuff. A few profs still did lab work with students on this
    > stuff.
    >
    > Some of the high speed stuff before they had computer simulations
    > was
    > awesome. Then again , some of the Computational Flight Dynamics
    > stuff
    > off of mainframes was pretty good, especially some of the airflow
    > studies. Massive computational requirements.


    There are digitals that go up to 200,000,000 frames/second. Film
    doesn't look so impressive now, does it?

    But none of this high speed stuff is in a general purpose camera--the
    ones that do hundreds of thousands of frames a second do that and
    nothing else.

    Incidentally, a 500 buck Casio point-and-shoot will do 1000
    frames/second.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 2, 2009
    #7
  8. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Rich Guest

    On Jan 1, 8:14 pm, ASAAR <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:43:46 -0600, RichA wrote:
    > >>   Not to the military, no.  But to consumers, quite so!

    >
    > > You mean consumers don't image above ground atomic bomb tests?
    > >  When did this happen?

    >
    >   Quite some time ago, but I wanted no truck with those loonies.
    > Not I, no.  I prefer not to become somebody else's vaporware.


    I would have loved to have been born early enough to have seen a
    test. No matter what your opinion of nukes, the spectacle would have
    been huge. Check out the documentary, "Trinity and Beyond" a three-
    year in the making masterpiece.
     
    Rich, Jan 2, 2009
    #8
  9. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    frank Guest

    On Jan 1, 7:45 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > frank wrote:
    > > On Dec 31 2008, 6:21 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > > <> wrote:
    > >> Alan Smithee <> wrote:
    > >>> Isn't it time for electronic pellicle mirrors in slr's now?
    > >>> The Canon 1N RS could shoot at 10fps using something called 35mm
    > >>> film in 1995. Impressive? Na. The Canon F-1 was capable of 9fps in
    > >>> the 70's.

    >
    > >> 9fps ... impressive?
    > >> Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    > >> That's impressive. And was duly increased to 10.000fps.

    >
    > >> The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps. On film.

    >
    > >> And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    > >> speeds of millions(!) of shots/s. On film.

    >
    > >> 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?

    >
    > >> -Wolfgang

    >
    > > I've heard what was interesting was the amount of 'dust' that would
    > > occur in the film take up reel  once the film ran out and it flapped
    > > until it was shut down.

    >
    > > Rochester Institute of Technology has people who worked or wrote on
    > > this stuff. A few profs still did lab work with students on this
    > > stuff.

    >
    > > Some of the high speed stuff before they had computer simulations
    > > was
    > > awesome. Then again , some of the Computational Flight Dynamics
    > > stuff
    > > off of mainframes was pretty good, especially some of the airflow
    > > studies. Massive computational requirements.

    >
    > There are digitals that go up to 200,000,000 frames/second.  Film
    > doesn't look so impressive now, does it?
    >
    > But none of this high speed stuff is in a general purpose camera--the
    > ones that do hundreds of thousands of frames a second do that and
    > nothing else.
    >
    > Incidentally, a 500 buck Casio point-and-shoot will do 1000
    > frames/second.
    >
    > --
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


    For how long and how many frames?
     
    frank, Jan 2, 2009
    #9
  10. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    frank Guest

    On Jan 1, 8:32 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > On Jan 1, 8:14 pm, ASAAR <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:43:46 -0600, RichA wrote:
    > > >>   Not to the military, no.  But to consumers, quite so!

    >
    > > > You mean consumers don't image above ground atomic bomb tests?
    > > >  When did this happen?

    >
    > >   Quite some time ago, but I wanted no truck with those loonies.
    > > Not I, no.  I prefer not to become somebody else's vaporware.

    >
    > I would have loved to have been born early enough to have seen a
    > test.  No matter what your opinion of nukes, the spectacle would have
    > been huge.  Check out the documentary, "Trinity and Beyond" a three-
    > year in the making masterpiece.


    No you don't. I watched some of the DNA stuff in the mid 80s, Minor
    Scale, simulated, we were 25 miles away from ground zero. Watching the
    ignition point and then seeing the shockwave come towards you was a
    bit awesome. And that was a few thousand tons of actual explosives.
    You could feel the overpressure.

    Couldn't have a camera. We had our security guy watching us watch it.
    Damn.....
     
    frank, Jan 2, 2009
    #10
  11. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    frank Guest

    On Dec 31 2008, 6:21 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:
    > Alan Smithee <> wrote:
    > > Isn't it time for electronic pellicle mirrors in slr's now?
    > > The Canon 1N RS could shoot at 10fps using something called 35mm film in
    > > 1995.  Impressive?  Na.  The Canon F-1 was capable of 9fps in the 70's.

    >
    > 9fps ... impressive?
    > Eastman Kodak had cameras in the early '30s(!) that did 1000fps.
    > That's impressive.  And was duly increased to 10.000fps.
    >
    > The Cordin Dynafax does up to 35.000fps.  On film.
    >
    > And rotating mirror ultra high speed framing cameras reach
    > speeds of millions(!) of shots/s.  On film.
    >
    > 9fps isn't impressive, now, is it?
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    What was interesting on some of those was you had to get the camera
    and film up to speed before you had the shutter moving, so it was
    wasting a bit of the 400 feet you had loaded. You had the film running
    through then you ran the test and got your data.

    Different systems had better resolution, image quality. Which if you
    were a photographer and really cared about it, get into this
    environment its, got a blob or whatever. Something you can measure.
    Half the frame may be digitized data information.

    Not something you can afford.

    Need a tech rep to fix it, service calls started at $10k.

    We had one system, I finally convinced management to have reps look at
    it, they looked at a series of up to a dozen. There was a temperature
    adjustment you'd set temperature, besides the focus. Aperature was
    sort of fixed. Huge suckers. Found out the range guys pretty much
    'tightened' the adjustment so that it snapped off. Dial turned but
    internals were broken. Ah well.

    We've all heard, make it idiot proof, you end up with better idiots.
    And so it goes.

    Went through massive amounts of film. Bought pallets of 400 foot cans.
     
    frank, Jan 2, 2009
    #11
  12. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    frank Guest

    On Jan 2, 1:40 am, RichA <> wrote:
    > frank <> wrote in news:413bc0ca-d707-4005-9f8d-
    >
    > >> I would have loved to have been born early enough to have seen a
    > >> test.  No matter what your opinion of nukes, the spectacle would have
    > >> been huge.  Check out the documentary, "Trinity and Beyond" a three-
    > >> year in the making masterpiece.

    >
    > > No you don't. I watched some of the DNA stuff in the mid 80s, Minor
    > > Scale, simulated, we were 25 miles away from ground zero. Watching the
    > > ignition point and then seeing the shockwave come towards you was a
    > > bit awesome. And that was a few thousand tons of actual explosives.
    > > You could feel the overpressure.

    >
    > > Couldn't have a camera. We had our security guy watching us watch it.
    > > Damn.....

    >
    > I hear they used to be quite the tourist draw in Las Vegas.


    This was 84 or so. Simulated, so everything was scaled down near where
    it went off. Had one of those MX ground transporters. Remember the old
    argument about racetrack and the MX missile where it would scoot
    around to different hide points? One of those things, there was other
    stuff.

    Papers had big article on it in NM at the time, one of the big deals
    was when different towns heard the noise from the shockwave. I clipped
    the article and put it in my log, I think it was heard as far
    Albuquerque, definitely in Socorro where I lived. Was at WSMR at the
    time.

    We sat on the roof of our building and watched, got a lecture on no
    binoculars, no cameras.

    Watching the shockwave was, awesome. Just like in the movies.

    They were going to do a bigger one the next year but I left and went
    back to Edwards. You know, when DoD was really flush and had tons of
    money, Navy was talking 600 ships.

    One of those years they decided to go from Nikon to Olympus; I always
    wondered what happened to all the 'surplus' Nikon stuff. Few years
    later, went back to Nikon, Olympus was nice and light but didnt' take
    abuse.
     
    frank, Jan 2, 2009
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Horner
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    522
  2. Careers
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    609
    Ben Measures
    Jan 31, 2004
  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=

    I think I will get this and I think I will get that

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    504
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=
    Mar 18, 2006
  4. John A.

    Re: Think Your Camera is Advaced?

    John A., Dec 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    330
    Chris Malcolm
    Jan 13, 2009
  5. ASAAR

    Re: Think Your Camera is Advaced?

    ASAAR, Dec 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    293
    ASAAR
    Jan 1, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page