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 > >
