Great story on NYTimes - Film still beats digital

[mrisney]

Great story about the U-2 Spy plane, still in service. A minor portion of the story, reveals that the US military, still analyzes intelligence with film.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/22plane.html

You would think that the with sizeable military contracts, that some contractor would have come forward with a digital imaging solution that would have mothballed US Airforce's high resolution film cameras. I have no idead what cameras they are using, certainly not commercial/consumer varieties, they probably have classified constructed lenses and film stock.

Still impressive that ultimatey they rely on film to examine imagery from 70,000 feet up for resolution quoted as " ...from 13 miles up its sensors can detect small disturbances in the dirt .."

Wow, would I like to run that film through my Mamiya, lol.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/03/21/business/0321-PLANE_10.html

 

[Jamie123]

Do we really have to break out in celebration everytime someone mentions that film is still used in a specific field? My doctor uses film for x-rays. So what?

 

[varjag]

Interesting.

I used to shoot air recon film (Soviet-made though) cut to 13x18cm from 18cm x 120m long roll. My avatar in fact was shot with it 🙂

 

[xwhatsit]

Military technology can be one of the most conservative fields there is. They invent marvellous things, test the living daylights out of them, trial them in the field, then maintain and support them with minor tweaks for the next 40 years. They were still using tubes/valves in aircraft up until surprisingly recent times.

 

[maddoc]

You can buy Rollei Retro400S, which is supposed to be Agfa Aviphot400S, a high speed panchromatic BW film with extended IR sensitivity for low and medium height flights. I had bought a 100ft roll of this stuff (only 4 rolls 135-36 left ...) and it is quite interesting for "normal" photography.

 

[Keith]

Military technology can be one of the most conservative fields there is. They invent marvellous things, test the living daylights out of them, trial them in the field, then maintain and support them with minor tweaks for the next 40 years. They were still using tubes/valves in aircraft up until surprisingly recent times.

The Australian Air Force is still using the F-111 ... developed back in the sixties! 😱

Not a lot of threats in the skies over Oz though! 😀

 

[Matus]

Do we really have to break out in celebration everytime someone mentions that film is still used in a specific field? My doctor uses film for x-rays. So what?

Sure 😉
BTW my mother stopped using film for X-rays two years ago and "went digital" (she is a dentist). So it was a sad day for photography :angel:

 

[xwhatsit]

The Australian Air Force is still using the F-111 ... developed back in the sixties! 😱

Not a lot of threats in the skies over Oz though! 😀

I'm sure you're aware that us Kiwis (kiwi is a flightless bird too 😛) were using A4 Skyhawks -- which first flew in 1954 -- up until very recently. We then tried to sell them, but surprisingly couldn't find a buyer (not even a museum? 🙄), so they were mothballed and stored away for the past couple of years.

Not a lot of threats over the skies here either 😛

 

[ernstk]

Military technology can be one of the most conservative fields there is. They invent marvellous things, test the living daylights out of them, trial them in the field, then maintain and support them with minor tweaks for the next 40 years. They were still using tubes/valves in aircraft up until surprisingly recent times.

Tubes/ valves make sense in military aircraft. They're largely immune from being knocked out by electro magnetic radiation.

Ernst

 

[Leigh Youdale]

. They were still using tubes/valves in aircraft up until surprisingly recent times.

It's called "plumbing" and quite necessary on long flights!

 

[user237428934]

Military is one of the slowest adopters of new technology. One the one hand they burn a lot of money for nonsense on the other hand they don't have the money to replace the oldest and most simple stuff.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Tell Google you need film for arial surveillance.

 

[bean_counter]

They were still using tubes/valves in aircraft up until surprisingly recent times.

And I am sure glad they did, it kept the Russian tube factories in business until the guitar and hi-fi folks stepped in with demand.

On the US side, those ugly "potato masher" 5R4WGB rectifier tubes used in B52's are cheap and plentiful. And it wasn't all that long ago that WWII surplus tubes were surprisingly available. Still are, but the popular types usually command a premium.

 

[rbiemer]

T
Not a lot of threats in the skies over Oz though! 😀

Well, except for those flying monkeys, I'd guess....


😀

Rob

 

[wgerrard]

Presumably, the cameras in these recon flights need to expose a certain number of frames per second. If that is a very high rate, does anyone know if a comparable digital sensor could respond at the same rate?

 

[maggieo]

Most B-52s currently in service with the U.S. Air Force are older than their pilots. There might be a Colonel or two that is older, but the USAF is running out of them faster than BUFFs.

 

[iamzip]

I was thinking also that the film / film cameras might be more rugged than digital.

 

[user237428934]

I think the main reason why they still have this is that it just works. They seem to have the material and the people that can operate the camera and the process of development. When the quality is still good enough, why change?

 

[newsgrunt]

or if the s#@t hits the fan, just open up the camera and expose all that film. like, 'nothing to see here....'

 

[KM-25]

They also use a lot of Ilfochrome due to it's superior sharpness. According to the best Ciba / Ilfo lab in the country, the military is helping to keep it alive.