World's largest camera

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

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

    Daniel Silevitch, Jun 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  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.
    Pat, Jun 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Daniel Silevitch

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
    Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)

    Steve Wolfe, Jun 15, 2006
  4. Daniel Silevitch

    Matt Ion Guest

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

    aussie bongo Guest

    after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??
    aussie bongo, Jun 15, 2006
  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.
    Craig M. Bobchin, Jun 15, 2006
  7. Daniel Silevitch

    Roy Smith Guest

    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
  8. Daniel Silevitch

    mianileng Guest

    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 ?
    mianileng, Jun 15, 2006
  9. Steve Wolfe wrote:
    [Pat had written:]
    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, Jun 15, 2006
  10. Daniel Silevitch

    Peter Guest

    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, Jun 15, 2006
  11. 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.
    My pleasure.

    Daniel Silevitch, Jun 15, 2006
  12. Daniel Silevitch

    ASAAR Guest


    Nope. Optimists aren't known for embracing negatives. :)
    ASAAR, Jun 15, 2006
  13. Daniel Silevitch

    irwell Guest

    I think the electronics industry, particularly in Integrated Circuit
    design used fairly large cameras in their chip lay out work.
    irwell, Jun 15, 2006
  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.
    Pat, Jun 15, 2006
  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 ....
    Pat, Jun 15, 2006
  16. How many megapixels is that???

    Darrell Larose, Jun 16, 2006
  17. Daniel Silevitch

    Lobby Dosser Guest

    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
  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 Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
    Randy Berbaum, Jun 16, 2006
  19. Daniel Silevitch

    Matt Ion Guest

    Thank you - I hoped SOMEone would get it :)
    Matt Ion, Jun 16, 2006
  20. Daniel Silevitch

    George Kerby Guest

    Because Kodachrome only does 35mm?
    George Kerby, Jun 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.