Great story on NYTimes - Film still beats digital

[user237428934]

Personally I think it's a matter of convenience, tone and pleasure... I use both systems, and sharpness is for me irrelevant... I don't need more sharpness than the one I get from Hasselblad or LF...

Cheers,

Juan

I don't think the Army chooses equipment based on the fun-factor for it's employees.

 

[KM-25]

As he suggests, why don't you do the tests and he'll publish the results? Seems fair to me...

Reichmann is the guy who does the often pointless gear-bate-ing that actual photographers don't have time to do because we are shooting, film and digital.

Seriously, where would he be without his largely gear headed internet fanfare?

 

[Calzone]

Perhaps not, but those Apaches certainly seem like fun. 😀

Not for me. I perfer the A-10 Thunderbolt. Nothing like a 30mm gun that is a kinetic weapon. The road from Kuwat was done by one squadron of A-10's in 2 sorties. The Russians even copied the plane to use in Afganistan because at altitude helicopters don't perform so well. Ever try to shoot down an A-10? It was designed to take direct hits from missles and absorb anti-aircraft fire. For close ground support I perfer an A-10.

Don't discount the military's technology. The good stuff you'll never hear about. Most recently, did you ever think about how the American Captain of an oil tanker was rescued from pirates? Did you realize the three perfect shots came from three guns that had gyros. And yes those Navy SEALS knew the drill.

Calzone

 

[jan normandale]

I like arguments that don't discuss the issue but devolve into specious name calling and dismissive talk regarding process yet never back it up.

Eugene... read the article.. it's a drum scan from a Pentax 67ii shooting 120 Provia 100F... not 35mm
Dan, he has an online presence just like you do.. what's your point? Your comment cuts both ways.

All these aspersions aside the article was well done and I'm not proseltyzing for digital, check the byline on my avatar

 

[HHPhoto]

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

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

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

All air forces are using film for their surveillance tasks.

For example the German air force is using Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Pan 200 with their Tornado Jets (there were two reports about it in G.).

You want to use this film in your Mamiya? No problem at all: Take Rollei Superpan 200. That is exactly Agfas Aviphot Pan 200.

Why is film used for this military surveillance photography?

1. Reliability in extrem conditions.

2. Much higher resolution with BW film than with digital sensors (look at Carl Zeiss homepage: there are some scientific tests published in camera lens news No. 17, 19, 20, 24 and 30 about film resolution; e.g. with TMX and Acros you get up to 160-180 Lp/mm, whereas a 24 MP sensor is limited at only 85 Lp/mm by the Nyquist frequency)

3. Bigger formats possible.

Cheers,
Jan

 

[kuzano]

Hey Think about it??

Hey Think about it??

Reason for using valves in military aircraft until recently is they are not affected by an EMP ( Electro magnetic pulse ) from a nuclear explosion which would destroy all printed circuits and transistors.

They took the CTU down with an EMP bomb last week and Jack Bauer had to "Go Visual". That was lame. Thank god for Chloe. She saved the day. Wonder if she can cook. I love that little disgruntled look and pout she musters up all the time.

That's why digital is merely a toy for me. I'm keeping my film cameras and have the freezer stocked. Using film regularly. I still want to know how to capture images when the PC's and digicams shut down.

 

[Ted2001]

Film is being used because it was designed in and still works. If a new recon plane was developed, do you think they would use film? I'd very seriously doubt it.

 

[JoeV]

Well, I suppose it depends on one's definition of the term "aerial surveillance." A Predator drone can rightly be considered a surveillance platform, but it isn't using film; rather, satellite-linked, wide-spectrum digital.

I agree that for certain types of surveillance missions - documenting wide swaths of terrain from aircraft - large format (i.e. 9.5" wide) rollfilm is a good solution. But not for tactical combat applications.

BTW, the aerial cameras used in the U2/SR-71/YA-12 were/are quite sophisticated, employing very advanced optics that compensate for the forward motion of the aircraft; conceptually like the way a panoramic camera works by mechanically panning the lens as the film is scanned across the gate. This is not just sticking a Speed Graphic out the window.😉

 

[filmfan]

They probably put so much money into making film work that they are milking their investment as long as they can.

 

[migtex]

The good thing too is.. looks like we gonna have the Rollei Retro 400s available for quite a awhile and it's half of the price of Fuji's and Kodak's.
Thank god there is some useful use for the MIL money!

 

[aaron.tam]

I would love to go up there with a camera..check this vid out of the U-2 Plane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cZLfK4Zjk