World's largest camera

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

.... 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/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

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

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" 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 ??

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

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?

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 ?

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

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.
--