Great story on NYTimes - Film still beats digital

xwhatsit said:
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.
Click to expand...

As an avionics technician in the CF, I can certainly back this up. I work on one of the most electronics-loaded AC in the world, and half the stuff onboard was made in the '70s, or before. Stuff works (sometimes..), money is always tight and we manage to get the mission done anyway... Why buy equipment more often than necessary? 😛
 
xwhatsit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ja Wohl!!! ~ we're going fire up the Dornier 17 and load the Leica IIIC K/MOOLY C K and survey the English military buildup on the Brighton coast......Film Uber Alles!
 
Last edited:
maddoc said:
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.
Click to expand...


I have a can of 70mm Aviphot 200, that I spool-up and use in my Hasselblads.
I really like that film.
 
I always imagined the U-2 had a guy hanging out the side with a harness shooting 4x5 in a Crown Graphic or similar ... no?

Rumour has it the Dutch Air Force uses M9's and 90mm Summicrons. :angel:
 
Last edited:
xwhatsit said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've logged nearly 300 hours in the back seat of the A-4T while in the US Navy back in the 70's.. I believe we flew the last A-4 in the early 90's..
 
And the U-2’s replacement sits right across the base — the Global Hawk, a remote-controlled drone that flies almost as high as the U-2 and typically stays aloft for 24 hours or more
Click to expand...

I think this sums up the relationship between old and new methods of imaging. It's lasted longer than a lot of expectations but 2.0 is right there.
 
parsec1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Only thing is, you'll see tube based pieces next to solid state ones... At least some of the equipment will function while she's going down 😛
 
It's about the maintenance problem. There are so much different in the temperature on the upper sky compare to the ground and the digital camera will confront with a stream or water that will be in the CCD or IR filter (and later fungi defection). The military needs a heavy duty equipments and to make sure they got a picture. I've experienced this once with the problem mention above in my country.
 
I dont know what US military uses up in the sky, but a friend of mine is a military photographer and he traveled to all ends of the world with his cameras that were supplied by US Military. They (he) were the first ones to get cool digital ones and now he uses top of the line Nikons DSLRs - again all supplied by the military. So, I'd say - technology-wise they are up to date it seems.
 
LeicaTom said:
Ja Wohl!!! ~ we're going fire up the Dornier 17 and load the Leica IIIC K/MOOLY C K and survey the English military buildup on the Brighton coast......Film Uber Alles!
Click to expand...

ACHTUNG SPITFIRE !!!! Easy meat for a Spitfire but then the Spits took on the ME 109 (bf's) fighters while the Hurricanes took out the bombers.


Read 'Fly for your life' by 'Battle of Britain ' ace Spitfire pilot Robert Stanford Tuck when I was 14 years old.
Never dreamnt then that I would actually meet him when the Daily Mirror asked me to photograph him on the 50th anniversary of that battle.
 
Just a reminder...we talking massive negatives and "black box" emulsions. Also the way you tweek the image output over 40 years are maybe 30 generations of lenses. So if digital could give the Air Force boys what they wanted, money is no problem. In the end it all comes down to the best image quality.
 
xwhatsit said:
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 😛
Click to expand...

Buyers found but the government has to get permission from the US government before sale can proceed, same thing happened with M113, you know if Bermuda gets it`s hands on this stuff there could be a real mess.😀

regards
CW
 
Spleenrippa said:
Only thing is, you'll see tube based pieces next to solid state ones... At least some of the equipment will function while she's going down 😛
Click to expand...

As one of your Pilots really did say to me when I was sitting in his RF4C
" If there's an emergency I will say Eject Eject Eject but you will only hear me say Eject once because after that I won't be here ". hehe
 
Large film will be better than digital. I think digi is a fair match for film if sensor and film size are the same. Now you need really big sensors to match large format film which is what is used in those cameras. The area covered with one shot is quite large and they are selective on exposures.

You simply can not take a common digi cam up and get the same thing. I suppose multiple shots could be stitched. I think they probably do that with spy satelites which and identify small objects from space.
 
NASA however have long since gone digital. For handheld applications and spacewalks the D2X is still being used, but now an order for newer D3 series Nikons has been placed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom