Aerial Photography

[BUGSBUNNYBOSS]

Hi all,

I was wondering what kind of cameras do people use for aerial photography? i.e. when they are flying at 30,000 feet, what kind of camera can capture events that are happening in the ground? must be very powerful cameras!!

[krispix]

Hi,
If you go into your profile and enter your name and where you live people will get a geographic fix on where you are, also we like to be friendly and keep things on a personal level - so, a name comes in handy.
My years of aerial photography are long, long behind me. But, back in the early 70's we used a 9"x9" Wild camera with a 6" (150mm) focal length lens. This is the rough equivalent of a 24mm on a 35mm film (or full frame) camera or 17mm on a crop-sensor. That should give you some idea of the size of the thing. If we flew at 12,500ft above the ground that would give us a scale of 1:50,000, ideal for map-making. I'm not sure what sort of detail of events at ground level you are imagining will be shot from 30,000ft but it sounds like a bit of a spy-mission.
I would imagine that modern aerial cameras are all digital now, but the optics will remain much the same although the sensor size will not need to be anything like as big as we used in the days of film.
If you let us have a bit more detail of what you've got in mind we might be able to help a little more.

Chris

[BUGSBUNNYBOSS]

Hi,
If you go into your profile and enter your name and where you live people will get a geographic fix on where you are, also we like to be friendly and keep things on a personal level - so, a name comes in handy.
My years of aerial photography are long, long behind me. But, back in the early 70's we used a 9"x9" Wild camera with a 6" (150mm) focal length lens. This is the rough equivalent of a 24mm on a 35mm film (or full frame) camera or 17mm on a crop-sensor. That should give you some idea of the size of the thing. If we flew at 12,500ft above the ground that would give us a scale of 1:50,000, ideal for map-making. I'm not sure what sort of detail of events at ground level you are imagining will be shot from 30,000ft but it sounds like a bit of a spy-mission.
I would imagine that modern aerial cameras are all digital now, but the optics will remain much the same although the sensor size will not need to be anything like as big as we used in the days of film.
If you let us have a bit more detail of what you've got in mind we might be able to help a little more.

Chris

Sorry about my profile!! will update it now.

Well, I had the chance to visit an exhibition, where in one of the stalls they were showing videos; taken from aircraft flying over 20000ft. and I was surprised to see the level of zoom they were able to achieve. I was seeing buildings fairly clear. I did not believe this was possible, and thought this was a trick.

This is why I wanted to hear from the professionals if it is possible. and FYI, I am a beginner in photography. and I did not understand the relation between focal length and sensor size. Did you mean to say 150mm focal length is equal to 24mm of a full frame sensor? sorry! I'm confused.

[rpcrowe]

There are at least several venues of aerial photography...

First is the reconnaissance photography which can literally read a license plate from an unbelievably high altitude. This task has been lately taken up by satellite or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photo platforms. There are many also commercial outlets which specialize in mapping photography...

Second is aerial photography from a dedicated aircraft in which the photographer has a say in where the aircraft flies and in which the photographer is not shooting through aircraft windows. Both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are suitable for this type of photography. However, unless you have a close friend with an aircraft, in which the door or windows can be opened or removed, this is a very expensive proposition. But it is the very best way to get either still imagery or video...

Third is shooting grab shots through a window from a non dedicated light aircraft or airliner. This is perhaps the poorest way to get imagery but, it may be the only way. I seldom try photography from airliners because I prefer an aisle seat. IMO, the best time to shoot from an airliner is when you are coming in for a landing or taking off and "IF" you are located on the better side of the aircraft. One in which the sun is behind you.


Area around Istanbul from Turkish Airlines Airliner Canon 7D, 17-55mm, at 55mm, f/2.8L, ISO 160, 1/800 second @ f/9 with LOTS OF PP....

Shooting grab shots through the windows of a light aircraft often provides better imagery because of the lower altitudes at which these planes fly...


Light Alaskan Bush Plane, Canon 30D, 17-55mm at 31mm, ISO 400, 1/250 second @ f/8


Finally, there is a growing hobby/business of using mini UAV helicopters for photography. Colin is the resident expert on this upcoming field...

Each of the venues has its own equipment and costs. Obviously, an individual; could not do high altitude reconn or mapping photography because of the costs involved...

When I shot motion pictures from helicopters in the 1960's and 1970's I would use either a Nelson Tyler mount; which was used in the opening shots of the motion picture "Sound of Music"
or a Dynalens...

The problem with the Nelson Tyler mount was that it needed a dedicated helicopter because it took a while to install in the aircraft.

A substitute for the Nelson Tyler Mount was the Dynalens.

The Dynalens fit in front of the motion picture camera lens (most often a 12-120mm Angenieux for my use) and used image stabilization to combat the vibration and motion of the helicopter. The advantage of the Dynalens is that you did not need to install it in a helicopter.

If I were to do a lot of aerial stills and some video on a shoestring budget (that is really an oxymoronical statement); I would consider renting or purchasing a Kenyon Gyro Stabilizer.



http://photoshipone.com/camera-gyro/

BTW: the Kenyon Gyro Stabilizer is pretty nice for shooting from a bobbing boat. Once you get used to the camera not moving as the boat bobs....

This little cantaloupe sized rig can stabilize ether still or video cameras. However, IMO, it is better for still imagery since the gyro will fight any pan or video camera movement..

As far as equipment for aerial photos other than reconn and mapping. Just about any DSLR and lens can work. I like a lens which has excellent image quality at a wide aperture so I can shoot at the highest possible shutter speed without needing to boost the ISO way up there. You don't have to worry a whit about DOF when shooting aerials. As example of a decent lens for aerials is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a 1.6x camera. But, most lenses can work.

If you are shooting through the aircraft window, make sure that you don't have a polarizer on your lens...

[GrahamS]

Have a look at Google Earth.

[BUGSBUNNYBOSS]

There are at least several venues of aerial photography...

First is the reconnaissance photography which can literally read a license plate from an unbelievably high altitude. This task has been lately taken up by satellite or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photo platforms. There are many also commercial outlets which specialize in mapping photography...

As far as equipment for aerial photos other than reconn and mapping. Just about any DSLR and lens can work. I like a lens which has excellent image quality at a wide aperture so I can shoot at the highest possible shutter speed without needing to boost the ISO way up there. You don't have to worry a whit about DOF when shooting aerials. As example of a decent lens for aerials is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a 1.6x camera. But, most lenses can work.

If you are shooting through the aircraft window, make sure that you don't have a polarizer on your lens...

wow! That's a lot of information.

I was in Dubai Air Show recently, where I saw this video; and it was taken from an UAV (reconnaissance).and the altitude of the UAV was about 20000 ft. when the recording was made.
Then I started wondering what kind of camera's do they use?

In the first photo, I noticed 'canon 7d' mentioned in the footer of the photo. Was that photo taken with a EOS 7d and 17-55 mm lens?



Vyas.

[rpcrowe]

The shot from the Turkish Airlines plane was taken in June 2013 with a Canon 7D using the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens from the port (left) side of the aircraft as we were in the descent before landing at Ataturk International Airport, Istanbul. The SOOC image was pretty muddy and flat. Post processing using NIK Viveza helped bring out the image to acceptable quality...

The shot from the Alaskan Bush Plane was taken in 2008 with that same lens but, with a 30D camera (which I was using at the time), also from the port side of the aircraft. It also needed quite a bit of PP but, not as much as the shot from the airliner. I have been using the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens since it was first introduced and love it...

Note: I personally find it to be ergonomically easier shooting from the left side of a vehicle or aircraft.

Here are some links regarding UAV Reconnaissance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper
"The cameras that the drones carry are capable of identifying an object the size of a milk carton from altitudes of 60,000 feet."

Global Hawk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk

[jcuknz]

To answer your question about equivalent lenses .... if you start with the first camera and draw a line nine inches long and then from the mimid point of the line draw anopther line at right angles and along that line you mark the six inch point. Connect that point to the ends of the first line. You will now have a triangle which is the angle of view of the first camera and its lens.
Now if you have a full frame camera with a sensor 36mm wide you find where a 36mm line fits between the two triangle lines .... the distance from there to when the lines meet is the focal length needed for the same angle of view

Mathematicians will have a way of working it out but not being one that is how I would do it

Here i'm doing it with MS Paint and for a 35mm or Full Frame digital camera Hope you get the idea

EDIT I got my translation from pixels wrong you need a 25mm lens.

EDIT TWO Remembering my schoolboy maths and using 25.4mm = one inch the answer is 24
[228.6/152.4] = 36x

[benm]

I happened to be at 36,000 feet yesterday and this is what I saw from my window:



(The white stuff are clouds).

[rpcrowe]

Note: I posted this regarding the statement: "I did not understand the relation between focal length and sensor size. Did you mean to say 150mm focal length is equal to 24mm of a full frame sensor? sorry! I'm confused.".

Before we had the digital crop cameras, I used to compare lenses from other formats...

As an example

standard lens for 35mm full frame was 50mm
standard lens for 6x6cm format was 75mm (often 80mm but 75mm is close enough)
Standard lens for 16mm motion picture frame was 25mm

So:
A 100mm lens on a 35mm camera would approximately equal a 150mm lens on a 6x6cm camera and a 50mm lens on a 16mm camera...

You can extrapolate from these figures any way you wish...

Such as: the 100mm lens was a close approximation to what was considered the ideal portrait focal length on a 35mm full frame camera and 150mm was a standard focal length on a 6x6cm format.

[jcuknz]

So:
A 100mm lens on a 35mm camera would approximately equal a 150mm lens on a 6x6cm camera and a 50mm lens on a 16mm camera...

.

Unfortunately for the calculations the 'standard' lens for movie cameras was 8mm---12.5mm ... 16mm---25mm .... 35mm---50mm
Remembering that the 50mm on the 35mm camera was recording on a half frame. I always assumed that the 25mm on my 16mm cameras was roughly equal to a 90mm on the 'full frame' 35mm still camera. read it somewhere and never bothered to check it out.

A 'normal lens' for that 9x9 camera would have been a 12 inch so the 6" was definitely a Wide Angle Using the diagonal of the film as 'standard'...

The equivalent[ approx] of the 16mm camera with [a guess on my part as I don't have a reference] 10mm x 8mm recording area needs a 12mm lens to equal the 50 on the still camera.
[ I remember from way way back my 9.5mm camera which used most of the width for its picture was 'equal' to 16mm in picture area and had sprocket holes between the frames vertically instead of beside the picture of 8/16 and 35mm film]
So when the 10mm Switar "WA" came out it was nice to have something almost like a 35mm still camera. I had switched to 16mm by then.

[Bobobird]

Just showing the possibilities -

Commercial airliner during descent with the Canon Powershot s90.


Over Siberia, 30000ft, also the s90.


I would think that nowadays any modern camera will do a reasonable shot. Commercial aerial is of course calling for the high end stuff, helicopters, and all the other equipment.

In parks I have seen people attaching a Gopro to a radio controlled plane or helicopter and then going gaga when viewing the shots. So that is another possibility.

[IzzieK]

My step-son use a Go-Pro when using our Luscombe. I've used a standard D90 with the 105 lens kit that came with it a few weeks ago when we and some friends decided to go to Washington (MO) to have some breakfast.

During the national Swift event, if I am on the ground, I only use my D300s with my 70-200 lens to shoot upwards, but when we were flying with the formation group in the air, I shot what I can with the same camera as I did not have time to either change lenses nor get my other gears.

The best photo shoot we had during the Swift event my husband and I hosted here in St. Louis in 2011 was taken by a point and shoot camera when we did the (pre-arranged) fly-by at the Gateway Arch. It really does not matter what camera you have on hand -- if the purpose of the shoot is to shoot aerial, nowadays you can get as good an aerial shot which caters to your fancy even with a smart phone.

'Hope this helps.
Izzie

[jcuknz]

Richard's comment "If you are shooting through the aircraft window, make sure that you don't have a polarizer on your lens... " reminds me of my first aerials ... a 'joytrip' from Wellington to Southern Alps and back ... took lots of photos but I didn't appreciate the window was green tinted ... I was using slide film .... I discovered as I reached the end of my film the NAC* Hostess had a filter to cope with the window problem

*Yes it was a long time ago c.1950's [ National Airways Corp ? ]

edit ... I suppose now with an editor I could copy them and correct