London from above at night

Worth a look:

http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39

Bruce wrote:
Worth a look:

http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39

Wow! Great stuff.
Thanks for that.

I see London has no energy crisis. Comforting.

--
Jeff R.

In message , Jeff R.
writes
Bruce wrote:
Worth a look:
http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39

Wow! Great stuff.
Thanks for that.

I see London has no energy crisis. Comforting.

Take another look... then compare to LA or Las Vegas or NY

Most of the lights are internal room lights or the normal street lights.
Very little other lighting.

OK Picture 18 is advertising lighting.

Well worth a look
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:
In message , Jeff R.
writes
Bruce wrote:
Worth a look:
http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39

Wow! Great stuff.
Thanks for that.

I see London has no energy crisis. Comforting.

Take another look... then compare to LA or Las Vegas or NY

Yes - the comparison is valid, but the point remains.
"OK - I may have murdered a few people, but look what Atilla the Hun
did!"

Most of the lights are internal room lights or the normal street
lights. Very little other lighting.

That's just rubbish. "Most" of the lights? Phooey! ...and BTW, "normal"
street lights are over-engineered and obscenely wasteful, directing so much
of their energy away from the target, as they do. (Not just in London - I'm
not picking on you Pommies. That wouldn't be fair.)


OK Picture 18 is advertising lighting.

Well worth a look

Yes, they certainly are.
,,,but you must admit - it should give us all pause about our excessive
energy use.

Much easier to not use (so much of) it, than to go broke generating more of
it.

--
Jeff R.

In message , Jeff R.
writes
Chris H wrote:

Most of the lights are internal room lights or the normal street
lights. Very little other lighting.

That's just rubbish. "Most" of the lights? Phooey! ...and BTW,
"normal" street lights are over-engineered and obscenely wasteful,
directing so much of their energy away from the target, as they do.
(Not just in
London - I'm not picking on you Pommies. That wouldn't be fair.)

I agree... there is a lot of light pollution generally quite apart from
the waste of energy.

I am all for removing lights on motorways, dual carriage ways etc.

There is something to be said for street lights in residential or urban
areas for security and safety of pedestrians but it should be movement
or heat sensitive and off when there is nothing there.

Also the electronics to do the sensing and switching could probably be
solar/battery powered. They do this is rural areas.

OK Picture 18 is advertising lighting.
Well worth a look

Yes, they certainly are.
,,,but you must admit - it should give us all pause about our excessive
energy use.
Much easier to not use (so much of) it, than to go broke generating
more of it.

I agree. Though compared to many cities London is still running a
blackout. In fact looking at them it made me realise how subdued
London is when it comes to lighting.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Message-ID: from Jeff
R. contained the following:

Worth a look:

http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39

Wow! Great stuff.
Thanks for that.

Yep, shame there is no technical info though.
--
Regards

Geoff Berrow

Geoff Berrow wrote:
Message-ID: from Jeff
R. contained the following:

Worth a look:

http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39
Wow! Great stuff.
Thanks for that.

Yep, shame there is no technical info though.

It says he uses a helicopter with a stabilised camera mount. Once you've
added those to your armoury, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the
rest.

Message-ID: from Willy Eckerslyke
contained the following:

Yep, shame there is no technical info though.

It says he uses a helicopter with a stabilised camera mount. Once you've
added those to your armoury, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the
rest.

Well, the cars leaving the roundabout show very slight blur. Assuming
they are traveling at 30 mph then that means they cover 44 feet per
second. I'd estimate movement of six to twelve inches and so the
shutter speed is unlikely to be less than 1/60th. Even with a fast lens
I'd have expected a high ISO and the pictures are impressively lacking
in noise.
--
Regards,
Geoff Berrow
http://www.slipperyhill.co.uk - Blue grass, blues, barn dance
http://4theweb.co.uk - Web design, development and hosting

Bruce wrote:
Worth a look:

http://tinyurl.com/6zoz39


Great link, thank you.

I did wonder, if the harness snapped would you keep firing knowing that
would produce some cool shots even though you would be dead.

Geoff Berrow wrote:
Message-ID: from Willy Eckerslyke
contained the following:

Yep, shame there is no technical info though.
It says he uses a helicopter with a stabilised camera mount. Once you've
added those to your armoury, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the
rest.

Well, the cars leaving the roundabout show very slight blur. Assuming
they are traveling at 30 mph then that means they cover 44 feet per
second. I'd estimate movement of six to twelve inches and so the
shutter speed is unlikely to be less than 1/60th. Even with a fast lens
I'd have expected a high ISO and the pictures are impressively lacking
in noise.

Yup, they're impressive. But we're talking big money here, so I wouldn't
be surprised if he's using a Hasselblad H3D or something with a far
higher resolution than the reduced versions we're seeing.
It'd be nice to play with kit like that one day, even without the
helicopter...