San Fran to Paris in two minutes - Did you see?

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/14/2011 12:40:45 PM · #1

Time lapse taken with 5D.

Message edited by author 2011-04-14 12:40:57.

geinafets

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/14/2011 01:40:57 PM · #2

I've taken well over 100 flights, nearly every single one of which has been a red-eye, and well over half of which have taken me over the northern Atlantic. Not once have I seen the aurora borealis! Not once! I'm definitely jealous.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

04/14/2011 01:59:45 PM · #3

Originally posted by geinafets:

Well, he did say (somewhere else) that he couldn't see the aurora borealis with his eyes, only the camera was picking it up. So maybe you've been missing them and just need to use your camera next time. :)

04/14/2011 02:31:36 PM · #4

Interesting that the aurora is seen on the right side of the plane. Flying east, I would expect to see it on the other side, facing north.

ETA: ok, here's the answer :)

Message edited by author 2011-04-14 14:37:04.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/14/2011 03:15:26 PM · #5

thats pretty awesome.

04/14/2011 03:28:38 PM · #6

Yes...I see he is on the right side of the craft....how can the aurora be there? I'm not understanding your answer !

Originally posted by tome:

Interesting that the aurora is seen on the right side of the plane. Flying east, I would expect to see it on the other side, facing north.

ETA: ok, here's the answer :)

geinafets

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/14/2011 04:00:41 PM · #7

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by geinafets:
I've taken well over 100 flights, nearly every single one of which has been a red-eye, and well over half of which have taken me over the northern Atlantic. Not once have I seen the aurora borealis! Not once! I'm definitely jealous.

Well, he did say (somewhere else) that he couldn't see the aurora borealis with his eyes, only the camera was picking it up. So maybe you've been missing them and just need to use your camera next time. :)

I might just have to try that next time : ) I always have my camera in the cabin with me (with the luck I have getting things stolen from my bags, there ain't no way I'm checking my gear), but I never bring a tripod in my carry-on. I once had a mini-tripod (max height of six-inches) and they declared it a weapon, so I'm surprised they let him have his tripod (but not surprised they let him use his gear).

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/14/2011 04:09:03 PM · #8

Originally posted by kenskid:

Yes...I see he is on the right side of the craft....how can the aurora be there? I'm not understanding your answer !

Originally posted by tome:
Interesting that the aurora is seen on the right side of the plane. Flying east, I would expect to see it on the other side, facing north.

ETA: ok, here's the answer :)

Maybe this is more likely the answer:

Originally posted by Article:

After the flight, they were edited together along with a few judiciously placed iPhone pics shot along the way.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/14/2011 04:13:18 PM · #9

I have flown with my tripod without incident quite a few times, but am often asked to put away my camera during take-off and landing as it is seen as an electronic device and therefore must be turned off and stowed away. The logic of banning the use of digital cameras and Ipods during assent and descent is supposed to be due to minute radio transmissions the create, but that has never been proven to interfere with any avionics, and probably has more to do with keeping passengers' attention to the flight crew than anything else. How this guy was able to shoot through the whole flight, let alone have his camera on a tripod unsecured against sudden turbulence implies some agreement with the flight crew.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/14/2011 04:18:41 PM · #10

When i flew to st Thomas with my family a few years back the plane was less than half full both ways, we pretty much had run of the whole plane, the flight attendants didn't care that we kept switching seats and such. we were not bothering other passengers and i imagine they would have let me set up a tripod.

Message edited by author 2011-04-14 16:18:53.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/14/2011 04:18:58 PM · #11

Originally posted by kenskid:

1) Magnetic north is most important for aurora, not true north.
2) If get get high enough in latitude (esp magnetic north latitudes), the aurora might be over top you (ie. on both sides of the plane.

04/14/2011 04:27:07 PM · #12

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Jonathan has a bit different info about this on his website.
Look at this part:
"The photos during take-off and landing are all computer models and totally rendered because I would never use an electronic device when the FAA prohibits them. I did get lucky and have a whole row to myself to setup the tripod and gear."
I don't see anything that looks like a computer model, though :).

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/14/2011 04:34:30 PM · #13

Have you guys been taking tripods on post 9/11? I've always been under the impression that was going to be a problem.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/14/2011 04:53:45 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Have you guys been taking tripods on post 9/11? I've always been under the impression that was going to be a problem.

They're going to hassle you because you just look like a terrorist. ;)

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

04/14/2011 04:57:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

2) If get get high enough in latitude (esp magnetic north latitudes), the aurora might be over top you (ie. on both sides of the plane.

When I saw my first and only aurora about 10 years ago here in Ireland, it was directly overhead.

04/14/2011 05:51:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) If get get high enough in latitude (esp magnetic north latitudes), the aurora might be over top you (ie. on both sides of the plane.

When I saw my first and only aurora about 10 years ago here in Ireland, it was directly overhead.

I guess it depends... I saw my first and only aurora on a flight from NYC to Europe, somewhere mid-Atlantic. It was far away to the north, relatively low on the horizon.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/14/2011 05:59:06 PM · #17

Originally posted by tome:

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) If get get high enough in latitude (esp magnetic north latitudes), the aurora might be over top you (ie. on both sides of the plane.

When I saw my first and only aurora about 10 years ago here in Ireland, it was directly overhead.

I guess it depends... I saw my first and only aurora on a flight from NYC to Europe, somewhere mid-Atlantic. It was far away to the north, relatively low on the horizon.

Pull up a little route for your flight and you'll see you are a lot further south if you leave from New York vs. San Francisco.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/14/2011 06:06:52 PM · #18

That's amazing...NY to Europe would be further south..

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by tome:

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) If get get high enough in latitude (esp magnetic north latitudes), the aurora might be over top you (ie. on both sides of the plane.

When I saw my first and only aurora about 10 years ago here in Ireland, it was directly overhead.

I guess it depends... I saw my first and only aurora on a flight from NYC to Europe, somewhere mid-Atlantic. It was far away to the north, relatively low on the horizon.

Pull up a little route for your flight and you'll see you are a lot further south if you leave from New York vs. San Francisco.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

04/14/2011 06:11:29 PM · #19

Originally posted by tome:

LOL, I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet..

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/14/2011 06:46:27 PM · #20

Originally posted by tome:

"The photos during take-off and landing are all computer models and totally rendered because I would never use an electronic device when the FAA prohibits them. I did get lucky and have a whole row to myself to setup the tripod and gear."

Un hun. Right. The hundreds of frames during take off and landing were computer models, each involving hundreds of hours of computer time on Pixar's rendering stations, each done so well that it looks just amazingly life like to someone like me that has flown out of SFO more times than I care to remember.His attention to detail in the computer model is just great, he even got my house, in one of the frames. Im sure he did that rather than break an FAA regulation.Really. I believe him.

Message edited by author 2011-04-14 18:51:19.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/14/2011 07:08:28 PM · #21

I've seen some Flight Sim "models" that looked pretty real. Could he have used something like that? (But, yea, I suspect he is just saying it)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/14/2011 07:21:13 PM · #22

Originally posted by karmat:

I've seen some Flight Sim "models" that looked pretty real. Could he have used something like that? (But, yea, I suspect he is just saying it)

The best simulators I have ever seen drop off after a certain point into generalizations. The view between the coastal range and Mt. Diablo of Orinda, Lafeyette and Walnut Creek (3 less than important towns from a plane's viewpoint) are in that area of obfuscation, and the detail are those you see from a plane, geographically exact, with detail that is beyond even Pixar's reach.

04/14/2011 10:20:27 PM · #23

It's all real....I don't care what he says !