World's largest camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Daniel Silevitch, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. Not digital, but still amusing to read about:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jun 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daniel Silevitch

    Pat Guest

    .... 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.

    Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > Not digital, but still amusing to read about:
    >
    > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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
     
    Pat, Jun 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Daniel Silevitch

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > 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. =)

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jun 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Daniel Silevitch

    Matt Ion Guest

    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.


    Maybe they're pessimists?
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 15, 2006
    #4
  5. Daniel Silevitch

    aussie bongo Guest

    "Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
    news:wbgkg.34345$Mn5.28809@pd7tw3no...
    > 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.

    >
    > Maybe they're pessimists?


    after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??
     
    aussie bongo, Jun 15, 2006
    #5
  6. 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/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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
    >
     
    Craig M. Bobchin, Jun 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Daniel Silevitch

    Roy Smith Guest

    In article <>, Steve Wolfe <> wrote:
    >> 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. =)


    That brings up an interesting question -- is the resolution of
    printing paper as high as the resolution of film? IIRC, a good
    negative can resolve about 1000 lpi. If I used an 8 x 10 view camera
    and made a contact print from that, would I get 1000 lpi in my print?
     
    Roy Smith, Jun 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Daniel Silevitch

    Guest

    Daniel Silevitch wrote:

    > Not digital, but still amusing to read about:
    >
    > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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


    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 ?
     
    , Jun 15, 2006
    #8
  9. 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?

    Neat cite. Thanks.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Daniel Silevitch

    Peter Guest

    Roy Smith wrote:
    > >
    > > Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)

    >
    > That brings up an interesting question -- is the resolution of
    > printing paper as high as the resolution of film? IIRC, a good
    > negative can resolve about 1000 lpi. If I used an 8 x 10 view camera
    > and made a contact print from that, would I get 1000 lpi in my print?


    The emulsion layers in printing paper are finer grained and
    capable of higher resolution than most or all 100 ISO film
    emulsions, but the nice bright white paper behind them
    tends to scatter light during printing.

    In practice you are not going to get much more than 25 lp/mm
    on a contact print. (about 600 lp/inch). If you have ever made
    contact prints of 35mm negatives by (with direct contact rather
    than through negative pages) you will have noticed that they
    stand up pretty well to examination under a 10x loupe, but they
    don't generally hold all the detail in the negative.

    Ilfochrome (for making prints from slides) is an exception to this.
    The dyes act as an effective anti-light-scattering layer. Even so
    the print will always resolve a bit less than the slide being printed
    even if the material does have higher resolution than slide film.

    Peter.
    --
     
    Peter, Jun 15, 2006
    #10
  11. 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
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jun 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Daniel Silevitch

    ASAAR Guest

    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. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Daniel Silevitch

    irwell Guest

    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/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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

    >
    >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.
     
    irwell, Jun 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Daniel Silevitch

    Pat Guest

    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/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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

    >
    > 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 ?
     
    Pat, Jun 15, 2006
    #14
  15. Daniel Silevitch

    Pat Guest

    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/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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
    > >
     
    Pat, Jun 15, 2006
    #15
  16. "Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Not digital, but still amusing to read about:
    >
    > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.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."
    >

    How many megapixels is that???

    ;)
     
    Darrell Larose, Jun 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Daniel Silevitch

    Lobby Dosser Guest

    wrote:

    >
    > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    >
    >> Not digital, but still amusing to read about:
    >>
    >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2
    >> 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.
     
    Lobby Dosser, Jun 16, 2006
    #17
  18. 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
     
    Randy Berbaum, Jun 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Daniel Silevitch

    Matt Ion Guest

    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 :)
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 16, 2006
    #19
  20. Daniel Silevitch

    George Kerby Guest

    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/nationworld/chi-0606150157jun15,1,2834107.
    >> 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

    >
     
    George Kerby, Jun 17, 2006
    #20
    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. brian

    World's Largest Zoom Ratio

    brian, Apr 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,456
    Bob Hickey
    Apr 21, 2004
  2. Au79

    World's largest Wi-Fi network uses Linux

    Au79, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    353
  3. Tessa
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    434
    Tessa
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. Somebody

    Worlds Largest Photo and Worlds Largest Camera...

    Somebody, Aug 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    648
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2007
  5. Gautam Majumdar

    World's largest digital camera

    Gautam Majumdar, Sep 5, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    438
    David J Taylor
    Sep 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page