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
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.
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...)
.. 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.
"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. That’s 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.
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 ...
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 :-)
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" ... :-)
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?
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.. :)
