Digital BW, The Print

> I have now abandoned that approach, but only in part.  Now I find 
> grain to
> be, relatively, a more serious problem than sharpness. 

You just need a bigger negative Paul - you need to start at 8x10    :-)

Tim

>> I have now abandoned that approach, but only in part.  Now I find
>> grain to
>> be, relatively, a more serious problem than sharpness.

>You just need a bigger negative Paul - you need to start at 8x10    :-)

I actually have an 8x10 head for my enlarger.  However, I used 8x10 mostly
for internegatives, including digital ones.

I've always thought it would be fun to have one of the spy-plane's huge
roll-film cameras.  I once read that those puppies resolve 80 lp/mm over an
entire 8x10 negative area.  Now that's what I call information capture.
Hmm, how many terabytes of RAM would I need to scan & manipulate that image
at 4000 ppi (high bit depth, of course)?

Paul

> I've always thought it would be fun to have one of the spy-plane's huge
> roll-film cameras.  I once read that those puppies resolve 80 lp/mm over
an
> entire 8x10 negative area.  Now that's what I call information capture.

Not only that, some of the rolls of film were over a mile long. That works
out to approx 8,000 exposures per roll.

When I was with Fairchild Weston some years back I heard one of the guys 
from the our sister division Fairchild Camera and Instrument (the people 
who developed the cameras for the U2, SR-71 and others) talk about this. 
With the camera off the SR-71 you could read a license plate of a car 
some 400 kmeters away. Now that's resolution. He also said the digital 
information content - what it would take to build an EO camera to 
compete - was in the 10's of terebytes.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>>I have now abandoned that approach, but only in part.  Now I find
>>>grain to
>>>be, relatively, a more serious problem than sharpness.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>You just need a bigger negative Paul - you need to start at 8x10    :-)
>>    
>>
>
>I actually have an 8x10 head for my enlarger.  However, I used 8x10 mostly
>for internegatives, including digital ones.
>
>I've always thought it would be fun to have one of the spy-plane's huge
>roll-film cameras.  I once read that those puppies resolve 80 lp/mm over an
>entire 8x10 negative area.  Now that's what I call information capture.
>Hmm, how many terabytes of RAM would I need to scan & manipulate that image
>at 4000 ppi (high bit depth, of course)?
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > I've always thought it would be fun to have one of the spy-plane's huge
> > roll-film cameras.  I once read that those puppies resolve 80 lp/mm over
> an
> > entire 8x10 negative area.  Now that's what I call information capture.
>
> Not only that, some of the rolls of film were over a mile long. That works
> out to approx 8,000 exposures per roll.

    I guess a motor drive would help there.  Mission Keyhole 6 (c. 1963)
resolved 160 lp/mm on film, or something less than two meters at around
100km orbital height.  I imagine things have improved since 1963.

Doubt if you'd need anywhere near that.  You can take a readable picture
of a license plate from a space satellite, and they sure don't use film,
and it's  certainly not in the terrabyte class. 

Jerry

Truman Prevatt wrote:

> 
> When I was with Fairchild Weston some years back I heard one of the guys
> from the our sister division Fairchild Camera and Instrument (the people
> who developed the cameras for the U2, SR-71 and others) talk about this.
> With the camera off the SR-71 you could read a license plate of a car
> some 400 kmeters away. Now that's resolution. He also said the digital
> information content - what it would take to build an EO camera to
> compete - was in the 10's of terebytes.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> >>>I have now abandoned that approach, but only in part.  Now I find
> >>>grain to
> >>>be, relatively, a more serious problem than sharpness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >>You just need a bigger negative Paul - you need to start at 8x10    :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I actually have an 8x10 head for my enlarger.  However, I used 8x10 mostly
> >for internegatives, including digital ones.
> >
> >I've always thought it would be fun to have one of the spy-plane's huge
> >roll-film cameras.  I once read that those puppies resolve 80 lp/mm over an
> >entire 8x10 negative area.  Now that's what I call information capture.
> >Hmm, how many terabytes of RAM would I need to scan & manipulate that image
> >at 4000 ppi (high bit depth, of course)?
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- Include your full name with your message.
> >- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> >- Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/