Nice to see he stole a half-century old method and is trying to act as if he
invented it. This was used over 50 years ago in 3D aerial photography for
surveillance of enemy activities during war-times. Recently documented on a PBS
special. They would fly at speeds of up to 250 mph while photographing
high-resolution images of the land moving beneath the planes that had to fly
close to the ground to get beneath radar detection. In synchronized 3D frames no
less. This idiot can't even do that. What a shame that he's doing by hand what
was done automatically over 50 years ago. Someone should tell this simpleton and
oaf that there are better ways.
And yes, digital can do even more than this today.
"Asle Bjerva" <abuse@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:HIGdnRblkJa5CxbbRVnzvAA@telenor.com...
> ~~NoMad~~ wrote:
>> Check this amazing photography:
>> http://www.wired.com/gadgets/digital...5-07/st_nascar
>>
>> Can this be done with a digital camera?
>>
>> NM
>
> Yes !
> By using photo finish equipment
> http://www.sportsystems.co.uk/PhotoFinish.aspx
> --
> AsleB;Oslo
>
OK, show me a comparable photo.
"CharleiD" <spammenot@noaddress.net> wrote in message
news:rk5n839nln5dkumds1u15vg1n1ojnfdihl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 05:49:22 -0600, "~~NoMad~~"
> <understanding.engine@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Check this amazing photography:
>>http://www.wired.com/gadgets/digital...5-07/st_nascar
>>
>>Can this be done with a digital camera?
>>
>>NM
>>
>>
>
> Nice to see he stole a half-century old method and is trying to act as if
> he
> invented it. This was used over 50 years ago in 3D aerial photography for
> surveillance of enemy activities during war-times. Recently documented on
> a PBS
> special. They would fly at speeds of up to 250 mph while photographing
> high-resolution images of the land moving beneath the planes that had to
> fly
> close to the ground to get beneath radar detection. In synchronized 3D
> frames no
> less. This idiot can't even do that. What a shame that he's doing by hand
> what
> was done automatically over 50 years ago. Someone should tell this
> simpleton and
> oaf that there are better ways.
>
> And yes, digital can do even more than this today.
>
Can you show me a comparable photo to what he as done?
Can it be done is different than has it been done.
There is no reason at all why a digital imaging sensor cannot be configured
to obtain an image in this fashion.
This is the same technique that has been used to determine positions in
races for a good while now. It is essentially a visual record of a very
narrow field of view with respect to time. You will have seen this type
of image many times before if you have ever watched horse racing or
track events where a photo finish is required to determine the winner.
The speed that these results are now given would imply that they are
captured digitally and not on film.
Just type "photo finish" into google's image search and you will find
hundreds of comparable photos.
What the hell difference does it make? Most rational people will
acknowledge that there a some things in which film is preferred to
digital, and vice versa.
~~NoMad~~ wrote:
> "CharleiD" <spammenot@noaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:rk5n839nln5dkumds1u15vg1n1ojnfdihl@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 05:49:22 -0600, "~~NoMad~~"
>> <understanding.engine@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Check this amazing photography:
>>> http://www.wired.com/gadgets/digital...5-07/st_nascar
>>>
>>> Can this be done with a digital camera?
>>>
>>> NM
>>>
>>>
>> Nice to see he stole a half-century old method and is trying to act as if
>> he
>> invented it. This was used over 50 years ago in 3D aerial photography for
>> surveillance of enemy activities during war-times. Recently documented on
>> a PBS
>> special. They would fly at speeds of up to 250 mph while photographing
>> high-resolution images of the land moving beneath the planes that had to
>> fly
>> close to the ground to get beneath radar detection. In synchronized 3D
>> frames no
>> less. This idiot can't even do that. What a shame that he's doing by hand
>> what
>> was done automatically over 50 years ago. Someone should tell this
>> simpleton and
>> oaf that there are better ways.
>>
>> And yes, digital can do even more than this today.
>>
>
> Can you show me a comparable photo to what he as done?
This is the way most spacecraft cameras work, for example,
Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), and Hyperion cameras
orbiting earth, as well as the EOS spacecraft with numerous
cameras like MODIS; the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter HIRISE
and CRISM instruments; the Mars Global Surveyor MOC (Mars
orbiter Camera), the Cassini VIMS, CIRS and UVIS cameras
orbiting Saturn; and many others. There are also
aircraft instruments that get images this way too,
e.g. the NASA AVIRIS system. Any of the beautiful images
of earth from earth orbit (most common is Landsat TM) you've
seen are with this line scan technology.
Cameras such as these are basically a line scan camera, and
one uses time to get the second spatial dimension.
In the case of aircraft, it is the plane's forward velocity
that provides the 2nd spatial dimension; for spacecraft,
it is the orbital motion. And all these systems are digital.
The above application of race cars would be much simpler with
a digital line scan camera than with film. In fact, one could
probably rip the guts out of a $200 flatbed scanner and do a better
job and not have to rely on "luck" like with the film setup.
By the way, such line scan digital systems have been in operation
for over 40 years. These are called push-broom scanners.
Think of the bristles of the broom as pixels and you push it
along gathering the second spatial dimension. There are also
"whisk-broom" scanners: one spatial pixel that moves side to side
quickly as you move forward, so you scan both dimensions with
a single pixel to build up an image. The AVIRIS instrument above
is a whisk-broom scanner; TM, MODIS, HIRISE and others mentioned
above are push-broom scanners, and VIMS is a combination of both.
Like pretty much all technology, there are advantages and
disadvantages to each design.
This is pretty cool: this is a replay of the latest Landsat satellite pass: http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow_ap...07aa59bff57609
I think it is a real-time playback (clouds usually aren't that
interesting), and the playback is low resolution compared to the
full dataset. You need java and a fast connection.
Film Works but can Digital do this? 
Linear Mode
