Finding the angle that a photo was taken from

[george013]

I'm getting lost now. Are we going for leaning out of a window or using a ladder in the road?

Still dealing with your question: the angle. The place can be anything. Also a balloon: something as a pre-historic drone.

George

[dem]

Hi Dem,

"Counting Bricks" gets me 70 bricks for the 381 pixel line of the LH Building.

Bricks and Mortar in those days - that's about 6.2~6.5mtrs for your blue line.

What do you reckon?

WW

Hi Bill.

I think 6 meters is too much. I got 5.1 meters using the height of the door as a reference in the original image and here is another attempt using Google maps:



The height of the ceiling in post 1920 terraced houses is 8 feet. Two floors + a foot between them = 17 feet or 5.2 meters. So it is 5.2+/-0.1 meters, take it or leave it.

The point still remains that the width of the image (now 9.8 meters) is roughly the same as the subject-camera distance (9.4 meters), and the angle of view about 53 degrees.

[dem]

I'm getting lost now. Are we going for leaning out of a window or using a ladder in the road?

"ladder in the road" definitely

[shreds]

Which photo number is this?

Photo number GDHS 4571

The lion logo of this design, situated on the locomotive tender, being first introduced in 1956 to replace an earlier design, so the photograph must be in the period 1956-62.

[shreds]

Regards storey heights of buildings, these varied in years past, although a good reference (Modern House Construction by G Lister Sutcliffe in six volumes, and published in 1899), states that most domestic rooms would have a room height of between 8' 6" and 9' 0".

In practice I would acquiesce to such a generalisation, having surveyed many thousands of houses of all ages over the years, but in many older houses and cottages, this could be less.

A lot stemmed from the Public Health Acts and Regulations as they were introduced over the years to improve sanitation and quality of living/avoiding overcrowding. Older properties were unlikely to be modified without other changes taking place. Determining floor level from the outside can be done, but there are frequent exceptions to the rule, especially on older housing, especially where timber floors may have been replaced. Measuring bricks can also be a misnomer, given the way legislation over the years has attempted to standardise brick sizes, so there are wide variations in depth, length and breadth of individual bricks. Mortar pointing between bricks has also varied in depth dependent upon fashions and materials utilised, as well as regional variations and bricklaying skill.

Many older buildings had much less prominent mortar joints than those produced today, as lime mortars were initially more compressible until set, compared to the speed of modern cement mortar setting. (The latter not necessarily an advantage in all cases)

Also consider that some properties and buildings may have had windows between storey heights for such things as staircases.

Grander properties would generally have significantly more ceiling height, given that even in the year 1899, the books of the day considered the 8'6" - 9'0" to be 'totally inadequate for good light and fresh circulation'. Gas and oil lighting of the day, required oxygen and fresh air circulation for the benefit of the occupants and combustion.

What those commentators would say about modern storey heights would be enlightening!

[george013]

Little people, those English. Standard size of the front door for a new building in Holland is 2315mm. Quite a difference.
Strange to see the top of the doors are not in one line with the top of the windows, lower.

George

[William W]

I'm getting lost now. Are we going for leaning out of a window or using a ladder in the road?

Standing in the road on top of something- probably a ladder.

The side discussion is more technical concerning what lens and camera might have been used and estimating how far away from the buildings the Photographer was standing

WW

[William W]

. . . I think 6 meters is too much. I got 5.1 meters using the height of the door as a reference in the original image and here is another attempt using Google maps:

OK - also it would only need for my one brick size to be in error by 0.5 cm and my building height would be grossly in error.

The point still remains that the width of the image (now 9.8 meters) is roughly the same as the subject-camera distance (9.4 meters), and the angle of view about 53 degrees.

Yes I understood that was a separate calculation/estimation. But it is related to any cropping of the negative . . . and as previously mentioned the Aspect Ratio is closer to 6x9 than 6x7.

As I mentioned earlier, 6x6 TLR and 6x7 Cameras and 6x9 Folding Bellows Cameras would be likely candidates for this shot.

Considering the Aspect Ratio of the image, I initially thought a 6x9 Folding Bellows Camera would have been used - especially because these cameras were very common between 1945 and 1965 and they often used for this type of "historical record" shot.

But because of the work Dem has done in making a logical analysis of the likely FoV of the lens - (hence FL of Lens on various formats) - I am now tending to think there is more possibility that a 135 Format Range Finder with a 35mm lens is likely.

I think that a 135 Format SLR with a 35mm lens is less likely, but also a possibility.

EXPLANATION - Most of the 6x9 Bellows Folding Cameras had a fixed lens of FL ranging between 90mm to 110mm.
6x6 TLR usually had an 80mm lens.

Because Dem's processes have extrapolated that wide angle lens was likely used, I think now that a 135 Format camera is a logical conclusion.

WW

*(This post has been edited to correct typo, pls see Dem's Post #50. Also extra paras have been added to make better sense. Sorry for any inconvenience. - WW)

[Dave Humphries]

Are we going for leaning out of a window or using a ladder in the road?

Did they have double decker's (buses) in that road at the time I wonder?

Fascinating thread and links.

[dem]

... and as previously mentioned the Aspect Ratio is closer to 6x9 than 3x2...

6x9 and 3x2 have the same aspect ratio. The image is 700x425 pixels which is close to 3x5 or 6x10. Not sure if it helps identifying the camera. As you say, it is probably 135 format with a 35 mm lens and the image was slightly cropped from top and bottom.

[Saorsa]

Regardless of the camera, lens or whatever, I think there would be only one position where the relative positions of the walls of the buildings would be true to the image.



Try to line up the extensions of the vertical lines in the image to the corners of extant buildings and you should be very close to the spot on the ground that was beneath the film plane.

[dem]

Regardless of the camera, lens or whatever, I think there would be only one position where the relative positions of the walls of the buildings would be true to the image

Absolutely! It is marked "HERE!!!" in the last image of post #32. This is where you put the ladder.

[William W]

Regardless of the camera, lens or whatever, I think there would be only one position where the relative positions of the walls of the buildings would be true to the image.

I concur. Dem nailed that in Post #32

[William W]

6x9 and 3x2 have the same aspect ratio. The image is 700x425 pixels which is close to 3x5 or 6x10. Not sure if it helps identifying the camera. As you say, it is probably 135 format with a 35 mm lens and the image was slightly cropped from top and bottom.

Thanks Dem, my typo (or brain loss). I have corrected that typo in Post #48 and also I have added extra paragraph to explain.

WW

[DavidAllen]

The posts here are incredible. I never expected so much effort and involvement. Thank you all so much for the feedback on the question.
Going by the angle of the shadow of the telegraph pole on the road, we should be able to calculate (approximately) the time of day that the photo was taken.

[DavidAllen]

Did they have double decker's (buses) in that road at the time I wonder?

Fascinating thread and links.

A double decker bus would be problematic unless it was open top.
However, Gamlingay was heavily into market gardening at the time so open back lorries filled
with sacks of potatoes or boxes of vegetables were fairly common.

[arith]

Hi
I am a member of a History Society and my main task is to collect, restore and publish old photos for our website.
I have a couple of photos that have been shot from an angle above the ground & we are trying to discover just where the photographer stood when he/she took the photo.
Is there any way, by measuring the angles of buildings on the photos (or otherwise) to discover approximately how high above the ground the camera was when the shot was taken?

What baffling shadows; very low sun but the telegraph pole in the foreground appears to originate from the centre of the road. Where is the shadow from the camera or building it is in? Looks as if we can see more of the front of buildings on the right on a road sloping down towards the camera: and bending right.

It is only a guess but I think the photo is taken from the left at about 10 ft high with a telephoto lens; probably from a low bridge even.

[DavidAllen]

What baffling shadows; very low sun but the telegraph pole in the foreground appears to originate from the centre of the road. Where is the shadow from the camera or building it is in? Looks as if we can see more of the front of buildings on the right on a road sloping down towards the camera: and bending right.

It is only a guess but I think the photo is taken from the left at about 10 ft high with a telephoto lens; probably from a low bridge even.

The telegraph pole casting the shadow is on the right hand pavement several yards behind the walking man. It can be seen on other photos on the site such as

GDHS0223 & GDHS0726. Did they have telephoto lenses in the 50s? Seems the best guess is that the camera is on a ladder or the back of a lorry, to the left of the middle of the road. The lack of a shadow from the photographer/ladder is slightly puzzling, I agree.

[george013]

The telegraph pole casting the shadow is on the right hand pavement several yards behind the walking man. It can be seen on other photos on the site such as

GDHS0223 & GDHS0726. Did they have telephoto lenses in the 50s? Seems the best guess is that the camera is on a ladder or the back of a lorry, to the left of the middle of the road. The lack of a shadow from the photographer/ladder is slightly puzzling, I agree.

The length of the telegraph pole is higher as the houses. See shadow.
The calculated position of the camera is between ground and first floor. Much shorter shadow.
My thoughts.

George

[dem]

Going by the angle of the shadow of the telegraph pole on the road, we should be able to calculate (approximately) the time of day that the photo was taken.

Sir, I accept your challenge.

The position of the Sun is defined by two angles - azimuth (angle from the North) and altitude (angle from the horizon).



The Sun visits the same position on the sky twice a year. Once we have identified the two angles, we will have two possible dates and times on which the same shadows can be observed.

After replotting the shadows seen in the image on Google map (we need a view from above to measure all angles correctly) and some trigonometry that I won't bore you with, I got azimuth = 150 degrees, altitude = 24 degrees.

Then we go to a website like this:

http://www.suncalc.org/#/52.1556,-0....0.17/10:57/5.5

and find the two possible answers: (1) 10:30 on 17 October (2) 11:00 on 24 February.

I would say, there is about 1 week uncertainty in the date and about half an hour uncertainty in the time either way. Take a pick.