Digital camera for rocket photography???

Yeah that's really the truth on CD's they just aren't as long lasting as some would like to believe. I have floppies dying all around me but every once in a while a CD gives up the ghost to and I have an Oh Shit moment. Most say 5 years is a good estimate of their life. The magazine disks are really awful and aren't even readable in many cdroms unless they are truly variable speed drives.

I still have a Nanosecond too, from 1983. (a 1 foot peice of wire for the youngsters in the group)

Rich K.

A little less than a foot. Got a few stored away.

I also have a "packet of picoseconds" that she gave out when she was working for DEC after she (finally) retired from the Navy. It's ground black pepper.

I wonder if Chris realizes that he's just admitted to the advantage of analog over digital? :)

What's this referring to??

They're pieces of wire about a foot long. (The speed of light and electricity works out quite close a billion feet per second, or 1 foot per nanosecond.)

186000 mi/sec x 5280 ft/mi = 982080000 ft/sec

-dave w

Chris, time to start a new hobby, developing your own film :)

I agree, film processing is expensive, but I really like the freedom of a manual camera. If I could get one of those digital backs I would.

before I think of doing much else with my life, I gotta get me a place to own. someplace that can have a magazine, a giant shop to keep the lil' lady from grumbling, and observatory/tracking station, ham shack, and (i guess) darkroom

Adm. Grace Hopper used to tell people not to waste a nanosecond when programming. When she gave talks she handed out short lengths of wire (just under a foot) to illustrate what a nanosecond meant; how far electricity traveled in that amount of time. The microsecond was a coil of wire 984 feet long.

After she retired from the Navy for the second time (at age 80) and went to work for Digital Equipment Corporation, goingaround the country giving talks. I had the privilege of meeting her twice, and have the nanoseconds to prove it! (She also handed out 'picoseconds'...packets of black pepper). Overall, a *real* neat lady:

also

analog is a myth. when you get right down to it everything is digital anyway :-)

Chris Taylor

I have some of those. from 8 inches to over 2ft HD platters.

nice to hang on the wall or play frisbee with those that you do not like. here catch this. zing !

that is the biggest farce in existance.

Cameras NEVER become more obsolete than when they are created.

the only reason your 35mm is not "obsolete" is that you can not afford to buy the upgrade (medium and large format camera's)

a 1.3mp camera will print a PERFECTLY acceptable normal family shot at 4x6

1 year from now it will make the same equally good 4x6 100 years from now it will still capture and print the same equally good 4x6

it only becomes obsolete because YOU bought the wrong camera OR the camera you WANTED did not exist yet. simple as that.

YOU obsolete the camera NOT the other way around. you say wait I can not print nice 8x10 from that 1.3mp. so what. you could not print nice 8x10's from that camera from day one. it was NEVER an ability that camera had. so YOUR desires of it have "changed" to be those that are outside of its abilities. not the other way around.

it was obsolete the moment you bought it. it never "goes" obsolete.

my coolpix 5000 will never go obsolete for rocketry shooting. it was obsolete for this task the moment nikon made it. I got it because it was a compromise on price. it takes the same pictures today as it did 2 years ago when I got it.

discount CD's I use the cheapest money can buy and I triplicate everything. HD master and DUAL optical disk backups stored in seperate locations in the house. (I lost 2000 pictures once so I am uber anal about protecting them now)

if any one copy fails I restore from one of the other backups to restore the backups to 3 again. the probability of all 3 of my backups failing as far less than the likey hood ofyou trashing your negatives :-)

and my copies will NEVER degrade. period. hey will make as perfect a copy in

100 years as they will today.

Chris Taylor

only because digital is not there yet.

once digital hits 15-20mp (8-10 for the average user) analog will die.

at 20mp digital will surpass the maximum resolution possible on consumer grade 35mm film.

it is not an advantage of digital over analog its an advantage of a certain resolution digital over a certain resolution analog.

completely different discussions.

that is why I want the EOS 1ds its a manual camera basically with a 11mp full size (35mm size) CMOS sensor.

its the perfect replacement for film. it will take ANY picture ANY consumer level 35mm can and do it cheaper.

I just wish I could afford it :-)

Right. But it would never be any better than that. If they make better a film next year I don't have to get different hardware, I just buy the new kind... and at any time, I have a choice of characteristics that does not necessarily exist in any given digital camera.

-dave w

You did for Advantix...

Eldred

Kodak 'disc' camera.

Joel. phx

Somehow, I just knew this thread would devolve into silliness :-)

A rock, a chisel, and a hammer never become more obsolete than the day you bought them! :-)

And if you chisel fast enough and spit enough paint, the image is better than analog AND digital.

Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1

Or establishes stupidity of some posters for all eternity.

Show me any digital camera under $1000 that will take the abuse my $150 SLR has taken in its 35 years. The absolute worst I ever did to my SLR was to take it to NARAM-20 at the late Mile Square park in California. It must have cost me about $30 to have all the dirt removed from the innards.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!