| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2013 01:16:15 AM · #1 |
World's Biggest Camera
Saw this linked in GiantMike's entry that just rolled over, thought it deserved a thread of its own.
Message edited by author 2013-11-25 01:16:27. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 10:35:55 AM · #2 |
| Too cool,thanks for sharing Robert,and Mike. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 10:49:17 AM · #3 |
I've seen it. I adore that thing.
Clearly they're bracing the subjects, but it seems like that's a fast lens... Wonder why the subjects needed to stay so still? I guess just to keep things in focus?
I'd LOVE to see the optical path of that thing.
In any case, the mechanism is just gorgeous - super jealous - and a bit inspired. :D
Message edited by author 2013-11-25 10:51:25. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:00:03 AM · #4 |
Thanks for starting the thread Bear. This thing was certainly a sight to behold!
Cory, the fastest shutter speed this has is 1/100. When I saw it, it was set to 1/2, which of course means the subjects need to stay pretty still.
If anyone gets the chance to see it, do it. I made a 60 mile drive to see it in the rain, and it was still worth it. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:04:30 AM · #5 |
| I'd say that the fact that a "normal" lens is going to be in the 1800mm range (based on a 72" diagonal of the film format) coupled with the 20-30 ft optical path would drive the need for a fairly long exposure. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:08:11 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Thanks for starting the thread Bear. This thing was certainly a sight to behold!
Cory, the fastest shutter speed this has is 1/100. When I saw it, it was set to 1/2, which of course means the subjects need to stay pretty still.
If anyone gets the chance to see it, do it. I made a 60 mile drive to see it in the rain, and it was still worth it. |
Were you able to see what the FL on the lens was?
I wonder how good that lens is optically? Considering it's a replica of a much smaller lens, one has to wonder what the optical characteristics are.
(And I also have to wonder what that costs... Custom building a lens cannot be cheap)
Message edited by author 2013-11-25 11:25:30. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:34:48 AM · #7 |
Cory, this is a screen capture off the second video  |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:41:51 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by see:
Cory, this is a screen capture off the second video |
Looking closer, you're right, the focal length is there. Looks to be either 1070mm or 107".. I think 1070mm probably makes more sense..
Wonder what this would look like with a 600mm f/3.5?
Obviously, this makes me wonder if I shouldn't build mine to use film too, but where the hell does a person get film that size? (and what does it cost? Gotta be magnificently expensive...) |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:44:50 AM · #9 |
| I saw something on a different camera and they made their own film, it was on glass. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:54:22 AM · #10 |
It's 1070mm. When I first saw that number I was blown away :)
FYI, I heard the lens itself cost a half a million dollars, so they likely aren't all that concerned with film costs. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:56:35 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Cory:
.. where the hell does a person get film that size? (and what does it cost? Gotta be magnificently expensive...) |
Not to mention having to build side-by-side swimming pools for the developer and fixer ... :-)
I think the largest film I've ever used was 20" x 24" (graphic arts, not panchromatic).
FWIW where I used to work they used to have a Brown horizontal graphic arts camera which might have taken film nearly that big -- the rail assembly which held the target object and lights ran some thirty feet down the room.
Message edited by author 2013-11-25 12:00:11. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 11:59:47 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
It's 1070mm. When I first saw that number I was blown away :)
FYI, I heard the lens itself cost a half a million dollars, so they likely aren't all that concerned with film costs. |
1/2 million? Where did you hear that figure?
|
|
|
|
11/25/2013 12:41:13 PM · #13 |
this *might* be more affordable, with exposures running in the $500 range ;-)
gallery here |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 12:51:59 PM · #14 |
Here is some good info from JS Online
Some more good stats: Madison.com
Here is where the $500,000 price tag for the lens was from (on the second page): HTR News |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 01:13:38 PM · #15 |
Thanks Mike!!!
"The film for the camera comes from Europe. When he first started working on the project a few years ago with prototypes, a roll that can take 15 to 18 photos cost $2,000. It now costs $25,000 a roll. That̢۪s one of the reasons Manarchy needs to raise about $3 million before he hits the road."
..
Oh... Ok.. I'm clearly on the right path. I have no need for $1500 per shot film thank you. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 01:25:29 PM · #16 |
So I was thinking, mightn't the "world's largest cameras" actually be the Keck telescopes, with an "aperture" of 10 meters and a focal length of 17.5 meters? Oops, read the rest of the article and they're only in second place ...
Message edited by author 2013-11-25 13:28:54. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 01:33:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So I was thinking, mightn't the "world's largest cameras" actually be the Keck telescopes, with an "aperture" of 10 meters and a focal length of 17.5 meters? Oops, read the rest of the article and they're only in second place ... |
THose aren't cameras anyway, they are lenses: a relatively normal camera is used for imaging. THIS baby is all camera: take the lens off, you still have the world's largest camera body :-) |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 01:37:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...take the lens off, you still have the world's largest camera body :-) |
OK, I had to put my nose into this one... I rather have a "big lens" and a small body than other way around!
*just ignore this reply as a background noise*
Message edited by author 2013-11-25 14:09:47. |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 01:42:11 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So I was thinking, mightn't the "world's largest cameras" actually be the Keck telescopes, with an "aperture" of 10 meters and a focal length of 17.5 meters? Oops, read the rest of the article and they're only in second place ... |
THose aren't cameras anyway, they are lenses: a relatively normal camera is used for imaging. |
I'm not sure the image-stabilization system on my camera can handle a 17.5m f/1.75 lens ... must be why they need a 275 ton "tripod" ... :-) |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 03:07:55 PM · #20 |
It's interesting that they would choose to do portraits with it. At the slow shutter speeds, the subject will have some motion, even if it's just a heartbeat, making all the huge negative detail blurry.
It is a great concept, and a noble challenge. I hope that they can pull it off as planned. They certainly missed an opportunity when they didn't buy up a store of film and put it in the refrigerator.
I wonder if they shoot a few 6X6 ft Polaroids to check composition and lighting before each shot? |
|
|
|
11/25/2013 03:41:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
It's interesting that they would choose to do portraits with it. At the slow shutter speeds, the subject will have some motion, even if it's just a heartbeat, making all the huge negative detail blurry.
It is a great concept, and a noble challenge. I hope that they can pull it off as planned. They certainly missed an opportunity when they didn't buy up a store of film and put it in the refrigerator.
I wonder if they shoot a few 6X6 ft Polaroids to check composition and lighting before each shot? |
]
Probably more like spot-checks with 8x10 Polaroids.. :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 03:55:52 PM EDT.
