yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
not having my camera.

There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
the Atlantic was a sight!

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

We have a camera bag that holds both our handheld GPS and our camera.
We're never without both.
--
Gene Seibel
http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.


Bob Noel wrote:
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.
>
> There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
> the Atlantic was a sight!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.

My camera is with me in the plane 90% of the time...I'm kick myself over
some of the few times that it wasn't.

Bob Noel wrote:
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.
>
> There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
> the Atlantic was a sight!

Absolutely. Never forget the camera.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.

Yup...that's a good rule. I follow it is often as I can. Bringing a
camera, that is.

I was in fact surprised that the recent article in AOPA Pilot about taking
friends on sightseeing flights assumed that the friends will bring cameras,
rather than pointing out that passengers often forget a camera.

I've found digital cameras in particular to be a wonderful solution to this
problem. It was always possible, of course, for a pilot to bring their own
camera to allow the passengers to use if they didn't have one of their own.
But a digital camera not only doesn't involve any additional cost in film or
processing, but the photos can be easily given to the passenger the same day
as the flight, if not immediately after.

Pete

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.
>
> There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
> the Atlantic was a sight!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

I almost always take mine. Yesterday, I landed at a local field where the
Civil Air Patrol was flying gliders. I made several good still shots, PLUS
my new camera can make VGA quality videos, so I've got a couple of neat
videos of gliders launching and landing.

KB

The day I got my checkout in the Beech King Air 200, the
NASA 747 was in Wichita, with the shuttle piggy-back, on the
way to Paris for the airshow.
We did our airwork over McConnell AFB above 10,000 feet and
joined up with the 747 and flew a few miles away for a
period of time. After a minute or two, we turned to each
other and said, "Damn, left my camera at home."



"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights.
Today
| was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's
flight is
| the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself
for
| not having my camera.
|
| There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
| just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
| the Atlantic was a sight!
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.
>
> There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
> the Atlantic was a sight!
>

I didn't have my camera the day I saw the 747 converted to water tanker do
a test drop...a waterfall from one end of the runway to the other....it was
awesome...all I have now is a memory of what it looked like..can't show
people a memory.

Peter Duniho writes:

> It was always possible, of course, for a pilot to bring their own
> camera to allow the passengers to use if they didn't have one of their own.
> But a digital camera not only doesn't involve any additional cost in film or
> processing, but the photos can be easily given to the passenger the same day
> as the flight, if not immediately after.

How? By handing them the memory cards?

With film, you can just hand them the roll of film for them to develop
and print. Also, with film, there's no question of you keeping a copy
for yourself, which may be good or bad, depending on what your
passengers prefer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"new_CFI" > wrote in
:

> I didn't have my camera the day I saw the 747 converted to water tanker
> do a test drop...a waterfall from one end of the runway to the
> other....it was awesome...all I have now is a memory of what it looked
> like..can't show people a memory.

Now THERE's an idea!

Someone needs to invent a device that you can plug into your ear or nose and
it downloads your memory onto a stick that can be plugged into a hard drive
or printer for making 4x5's for $0.13!

What is the resolution of the human eye, anyway?

Judah writes:

> What is the resolution of the human eye, anyway?

About 30 seconds of arc at best, under good viewing conditions and in
the zone of maximum visual acuity. To put that in aviation terms,
it's an ability to distinguish an object the size of a pie plate (nine
inches) from an altitude of 5000 feet, looking straight down.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bob Noel wrote:
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.
>
> There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
> the Atlantic was a sight!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

I've taken a lot of pictures over the years and find that I
seldom refer to them. They don't capture the "spirit" of the moment, as
C.S. Lewis put it. The few times I wished I had my camera was when I
encountered an airplane like the one I was buiolding, as a few shots of
airframe details that don't get properly covered in the pans are a big
help.

Dan

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:16:48 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:50:25 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
> >There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> >just can't describe.
>
> Yesterday morning , there was a 100 ft thick layer of ground fog over
> the CT River valley, with unlimited ceilings to either side. Buildings
> and towers were poking through a smooth, white blanket!

http://www.wanttaja.com/sunrise.JPG

That sort of thing is even nicer at night...

http://www.wanttaja.com/nighttime1.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> With digital, you simply upload the photos to a printer convenient to
> the recipient. They pick up and pay ~ $0.13/ea. for their prints. You
> keep the originals.

That, or you just email them or put them on a server where they can download
them (which is what I do). It's as fast as any photo processing center,
costs nothing (beyond what I already spend for the online facilities used,
that is), and is WAY more convenient.

The other nice thing about digital is that they can be copied as many times
as you like, again without any cost at all. The copies are identical so the
concept of "originals" is somewhat archaic. :)

I've never had a passenger express an interest in me NOT having copies of
the pictures (in fact, the implicit understanding is that by using my
camera, they are promising to share) but if someone did ask me to not save
any of the pictures they took, I would certainly comply.

> Film, who needs steekin' film? <G>

Exactly. :)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've taken a lot of pictures over the years and find that I
> seldom refer to them. They don't capture the "spirit" of the moment, as
> C.S. Lewis put it.

IMHO, that's missing the point. Please, bear with me. :)

I've taken thousands of pictures. Maybe even over ten thousand at this
point (but probably not twenty thousand...I'm not a professional, nor even
an avid hobbyist), now that digital photography came along (got my first
digital camera ten years ago).

Do I refer to most of those pictures after taking them? Nope. The vast
majority, I could delete forever and never notice. For the few that I do
refer to, do I do so to "capture the 'spirit' of the moment"? Nope...as you
and Lewis note, the picture rarely can perfectly put you back in the frame
of mind of the moment.

Though that said, the picture *can* at least remind you of a precious
moment. Your own memory is what recaptures the spirit, and the photo may be
meaningless to anyone else. But it's still a pleasurable experience to view
again for yourself.

More importantly (at least to me) is that the photo has artistic value in
and of itself. Most of the photos you take probably won't fall into this
category (unless you're an excellent and experienced photographer), but
that's not the point. All it takes is one photo every now and then for it
to be all worthwhile. And this is especially true with digital photography,
where a relatively small camera is capable of taking remarkably high-quality
photos, with no incremental cost associated with each photo, and with very
little inconvenience in having the camera with you.

This is why the "bring a camera" rule is such a good one. Today, it
requires very little trouble, and can produce great rewards. Most of the
time it won't, but it's easy insurance to cover those few moments when it
will.


And (just 'cause this post isn't long enough already :) ), here's my
thoughts on the digital-versus-film aspect of this issue:

Even when I was only shooting film, I did try to follow the philosophy that
"film is cheap". And relatively speaking it was. But it still cost
*something*, as did the processing. In addition, not doing my own
processing I was subject to the vagaries of the person who was doing it. I
tried nearly a dozen local processors before settling on one that could
consistently turn out photos that were of high quality, and even with them I
still occasionally got a print with a bit of lint on the negative. They'll
reprint the photo for free when that happens, but it's still a hassle to
have to go back and have them do it.

With a small digital camera, I get instant results, good-quality pictures,
no processing hassles or costs, and best of all it's easy to have the camera
with me at all times. I would never think of dragging my film camera around
with me all the time. It's more capable than the digital camera I use, but
it also is quite a bit larger, and I don't like carrying it without the
accessories (extra lens, flash, extra batteries, film, filters, etc) which
results in a pretty big load. With my digital camera, I put a fresh
rechargeable battery in it, drop it in my pocket or flight bag, and I don't
even notice it unless I need it.

So, even more so than used to be the case, digital photography has made it
even easier and convenient to always have a camera along.

(And yes, even before digital you could get 35mm "point-and-shoot" cameras,
but I never got the kind of results from those that I get with similar-sized
digital cameras today)

> The few times I wished I had my camera was when I
> encountered an airplane like the one I was buiolding, as a few shots of
> airframe details that don't get properly covered in the pans are a big
> help.

That's yet another great reason to have a camera along! If it's not a lot
of trouble to bring one, why not keep one with you at all times, just in
case? :)

Pete

This was taken last month on a breakfast flight to Leadville CO. No
camera...no pics.

http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Leadville26Sep06Small.jpg

Ron Lee

Having my camera with me the day I landed on 4R at EWR in the Archer nearly
caused a bad day. On short final approaching the numbers, I couldn't resist
snapping a pic of that runway disappearing into the perspective. I grabbed
the camera off the right seat, flipped off the lens cap and got a great shot
through the prop: http://www.geocities.com/viewptmd/EWR4RShortFinal.JPG.
Unfortunately, the camera strap got tangled up in the yoke. I had approval
to land long, which was a good thing because after finally getting the strap
free, I realized I had ballooned up 100 feet or so. Fly the airplane! The
tower didn't say anything, and I set it down right where I had originally
wanted to, but it could have been bad, and/or embarrassing.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> How? By handing them the memory cards?

Another clueless post from a person who doesn't even know what a REAL
PLANE is. Are you sure you don't leave your room and get away from
your MSFS game?

Just download the picture to a computer and email it to them. If
wireless is available on the camera, you may even be able to transfer
the image via bluetooth technology or infrared to another digital PDA.

Use a cell phone camera and you can send it via cell service.

Film??? What is that, that's 19th century stuff.

Allen

About 1 minute of angle if there is good light and contrast.



"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| "new_CFI" > wrote in
| :
|
| > I didn't have my camera the day I saw the 747 converted
to water tanker
| > do a test drop...a waterfall from one end of the runway
to the
| > other....it was awesome...all I have now is a memory of
what it looked
| > like..can't show people a memory.
|
| Now THERE's an idea!
|
| Someone needs to invent a device that you can plug into
your ear or nose and
| it downloads your memory onto a stick that can be plugged
into a hard drive
| or printer for making 4x5's for $0.13!
|
| What is the resolution of the human eye, anyway?

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.
>
> There were some really beautiful high clouds that I
> just can't describe. And the full moon rising over
> the Atlantic was a sight!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

I always try to bring mine along for the ride (even on commerical
flights...):

http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/aerials

(Feel free to dig around the other galleries too.)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

No, I mean in MegaPixels.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:POzWg.1483
$XX2.194@dukeread04:

> About 1 minute of angle if there is good light and contrast.
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>| What is the resolution of the human eye, anyway?

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in
:

> Having my camera with me the day I landed on 4R at EWR in the Archer
> nearly caused a bad day. On short final approaching the numbers, I
> couldn't resist snapping a pic of that runway disappearing into the
> perspective. I grabbed the camera off the right seat, flipped off the
> lens cap and got a great shot through the prop:
> http://www.geocities.com/viewptmd/EWR4RShortFinal.JPG. Unfortunately,
> the camera strap got tangled up in the yoke. I had approval to land
> long, which was a good thing because after finally getting the strap
> free, I realized I had ballooned up 100 feet or so. Fly the airplane!
> The tower didn't say anything, and I set it down right where I had
> originally wanted to, but it could have been bad, and/or embarrassing.
>

Nah. They probably didn't know what to expect... When do you think was the
last time they saw an Archer land? :)

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> No, I mean in MegaPixels.

That depends on both your estimate of angular resolution as well as your
estimate of the high-resolution field of view. Both vary considerably.

As an example, let's say that for the purpose of your question, we consider
only the field of view attributable to the fovea (the part of the eye that
has only cones, and no rods...this is considered the limit of
"high-resolution" vision...you can see a much wider field of view than this,
but without nearly the same detail as in the center of your vision). A
quick Google search turns up estimates of foveal field of view between 4
degrees and 15 degrees. So already we have quite a discrepancy of
estimates.

If we accept the 1 minute of angle estimate for angular resolution, that
gives us between 240 and 900 units of vision across the field of view. Call
those the equivalent of pixels, and assume a perfectly circular visual
reception, and you get between 45K and 636K "pixels". So in megapixels,
that's between 0.045 and 0.636.

That said, this is a pretty simplistic analysis of the equivalent in
megapixels of human vision. Human vision is different than digital vision
in a variety of ways, and a direct mapping such as shown above is leaving
out a lot of other factors that may affect total effective resolution. But
at the very least, this gives you a ballpark minimum starting point.

Also keep in mind that a digital camera may or may not have a lens capable
of resolving in perfect detail the total resolution available on the image
detector (usually a CCD). So you may have an 8MP camera, but when you look
at an image zoomed on a computer screen at a
one-display-pixel-per-image-pixel ratio, you may find a variety of artifacts
in the digital image.

So basically, human vision may be better than the theoretically calculated
resolution, while a digital camera may have less than the theoretically
calculated resolution. It's really hard to compare in a true
apples-to-apples way.

Pete

Google
Clarkvision Photography - Resolution of the Human Eye At any
one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels,
but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail
you want. But the human eye ...
www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html -
12k - Cached - Similar pages


Visual Acuity and Digital Images It turns out that the human
eye only has a certain number of light detectors in it. ...
However, in digital images, the pixels or dots are square.
....
www.blaha.net/Main%20Visual%20Acuity.htm - 53k -
Cached - Similar pages


[DOC] http://clarkvision File Format: Microsoft Word - View
as HTML
The Human eye is able to function in bright sunlight
and view faint starlight, ... Visual acuity is defined as
1/a where a is the response in x/arc-minute. ...
www.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Juniorlab/Balmer/EyeDynamicRange-2005.doc
- Similar pages


TECHNOLOGY CORNER ACUITY IN PRACTICE. A single human eye
sees roughly a 140-degree field ... Now, let's calculate the
distance between scanning line centers and pixel centers ...
www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/Hoffner_features.shtml
- 25k - Cached - Similar pages


Visual Acuity in Sensory Substitution for the Blind In
measuring the visual acuity of normal human vision, the eyes
move around ... with a typical horizontal resolution of 176
pixels for the PC camera input, ...
www.seeingwithsound.com/acuity.htm - Similar pages


HDTV displays: How good do they need to be? Thus, screens
don't have lines any more, only rows or columns of pixels.
.... The human visual acuity is 20/20 at any distance if the
height of the ...
broadcastengineering.com/hdtv-displays/ - 67k -
Cached - Similar pages


"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| No, I mean in MegaPixels.
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in news:POzWg.1483
| $XX2.194@dukeread04:
|
| > About 1 minute of angle if there is good light and
contrast.
| > "Judah" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| >| What is the resolution of the human eye, anyway?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> No, I mean in MegaPixels.
>
> That depends on both your estimate of angular resolution as well as your
> estimate of the high-resolution field of view. Both vary considerably.

<snip>

> Call those the equivalent of pixels, and assume a perfectly circular
> visual reception, and you get between 45K and 636K "pixels". So in
> megapixels, that's between 0.045 and 0.636.

<snip>

> So basically, human vision may be better than the theoretically
> calculated resolution, while a digital camera may have less than the
> theoretically calculated resolution. It's really hard to compare in a
> true apples-to-apples way.

So what you're basically saying is that my idea of plugging a BlueTooth
interface into one's cereberal cortex is impractical until we first come up
with a way to upgrade the eyes to a higher megapixel rating... I guess that
makes some sense - I can't really tell the difference between a 1 MP image
and an 8MP image...

:)

> yep - I've been kind of dumb these past few fall flights. Today
> was yet another absolutely perfect flying day (today's flight is
> the reason I own an airplane). I'm still kicking myself for
> not having my camera.

After trashing two Canon Elph cameras (by keeping them in my pocket all
the time, and fouling the auto-focus lens with pocket lint), I
purchased a little velcro belt pouch for it. I wear it like a cell
phone, and the camera is with me at all times.

My kids think I look like a geek (and I do), but I've always got the
camera along, and never "miss the moment"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:16:48 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:
>Yesterday morning , there was a 100 ft thick layer of ground fog over
>the CT River valley, with unlimited ceilings to either side. Buildings
>and towers were poking through a smooth, white blanket!
>
>I was also sans-camera... 8^(

Years ago I was flying up the Jersey shore over a fog bank. Passing
Atlantic CIty, the only building visible above the could was the top
of the Playboy Club casino... all you could see was the rabbit... and
of course, no camera.

My favorite missed picture, though, was when PPGing at Fantasy of
Flight a few years back. A hot air balloon was just landing at the
field, and for one brief moment I could see the balloon, its perfect
inverted reflection in glass smooth water of a pond... the scene
perfectly bisected by the triple tail of the museum's Constellation.

Barry, ya gotta drop by at Griswold one of these days, yesterday was
jumpin' there. Mini-flyin on 10/29...

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> This was taken last month on a breakfast flight to Leadville CO. No
> camera...no pics.
>
> http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Leadville26Sep06Small.jpg

That is a great pic! You got a link for a high resolution version?

Just curious, but what reference points on the planes do the wingmen use for
lining up on lead? Root trailing edge to roll bar?
--
Jim in NC

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> So what you're basically saying is that my idea of plugging a BlueTooth
> interface into one's cereberal cortex is impractical until we first come
> up
> with a way to upgrade the eyes to a higher megapixel rating...

No, not at all. If you come up with a 100% safe means to do that, I'll be
one of the first customers, especially if you include a "last 5 minutes"
video loop buffer. Resolution is not always the most important aspect of
photography.

So, get to work!

"Morgans" > wrote:

>Just curious, but what reference points on the planes do the wingmen use for
>lining up on lead? Root trailing edge to roll bar?
>--
>Jim in NC
>

Link sent via email. I don't know what the reference points are. My
formation flying is very limited. Maybe someone else can answer that
question.

Ron Lee