Re: Film is not dead! 35 Foot Camera uses film the size of a person

[Roger Eichhorn <eichhorn@xxxxxx>]

Could be a focal plane shutter just behind the lens, or would this raise other problems?  In his computer images the lens appears to be about 2 ft in diameter.  Can one purchase negative film the size he's suggesting?  And handling it?  Wow!

Roger

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 26, 2012, at 7:55 PM, Karl Shah-Jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Roy:
>> The bb I got it off doesn't show the whole link. That is what the three
>> dots indicate.
>> So the full link is
>> 
>> _http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/15/35-foot-camera-dennis-manarchy?hpt=
>> hp_bn13_
>> (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/15/35-foot-camera-dennis-manarchy?hpt=hp_bn13)
>> 
>> roy
> 
> 
> too early in the morning for me to crunch this but as impressed with the camera as I will be, I'm going to be even more impressed by the lens this guy is going to need!
> 
> some thoughts..
> 
> let's see - he's proposing 1/1000 of a second to avoid movement  -  and the rig is portable so I'm assuming he plans on using it in semi-lit /outdoor settings (hopefully without incinerating the subject) ..   the 3+ stops he'll gain over daylight is going to require a fair thump of light
> 
> 
> I'd guess if his proposed shutter speed is 1/1000 of a second I'm also going to be highly impressed by the shutter!
> 
> 
> It's suggested in the article and accompanying images that he'll effectively be producing  something like 9:1 (or greater) macro shots of faces - that's going to cause a serious reduction in light and require on heck of a fast lens!  (and subsequent reduction in DoF)
> 
> to be honest I'd think the risk of fouling a shot being so expensive he'd be better going the other way and allowing for much longer exposures, that way a minor facial flicker or a blink might be a fraction of the full duration of the exposure and would be a mere ghost in the image
> 
>