On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:45:34 -0500, Roger Merchberger <zmerch at 30below.com> wrote: Agreed... I have an Olympus D10 I picked up a couple of years ago... one important feature is that it has an external trigger input for a "bulb". I used it to take pictures of the Aurora Australis (http://www.penguincentral.com/cgi-penguincentral/pix.cgi?target=2004) It doesn't have interchangable lenses, but it does have an iris and a shutter. The longest timed shutter speed is either 8 or 16 sec (can't remember; don't use it). I needed 45-60 sec to get aurorae, meaning I needed a much-better-than-consumer-grade digital camera. There's lots better on the market now, but at the time, it was the best I could afford. -ethan

At 09:20 AM 3/1/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: During a nice solar storm like the one we had in November, you need not go that far south or north. Check out November 8, 2004 or so on www.spaceweather.com . Here in SE WI, the aurora passed the zenith. Are they that green around here? Sometimes, but they're generally more muted. Any sort of time exposure intensifies the colors your eyes can't see in dim light. - John

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:46:32 -0500 (EST), der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote: The example I have on my page just happens to be the first images I took last year, when it was barely dark enough to see them (2 or 3 weeks past sunset). We did have several sky-covering events over the winter, but those are difficult to photograph, especially with only a 36mm-equivalent lens field of view (a "standard" panoramic lens is on the order of 28mm field-of-view, and really wide angle lenses are around 16-24mm). Many of my photographs are of the intense ribbons we saw, because the all-sky events would just look like a green wash to the camera. Those are best experienced rather than photographed. Also... we are approaching a solar minimum on the sunspot cycle. We got more events and more aurorae than we "deserved" statistically. I'm not looking forward to my next visit, as it will most likely be fewer aurorae than last year. Location has a *lot* to do with the spread of aurorae, and not just latitude - relative position to the northern or southern magnetic pole is important... it's just as bad to be too close to the mag pole as to be too far south. One of the nice things about the location of the Geographic South Pole is that the auroral ring (have a look at the aurorae from space to see exactly what that looks like) passes over the top of the station right around lunch time. That would be the most likely cause. Faint aurorae appear colorless to the human eye, but are the same color as intense ones - it's all about quantum levels and photon emission from excited gas atoms. -ethan

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 07:20:37 -0800 (PST), Vintage Computer Festival <vcf at siconic.com> wrote: It's an amazing place. I've heard that tourists pay between $25K and $60K for trips to the Pole (the tourist companies have to haul each gallon of fuel in themselves - there is no public infrastructure, just what each government sets up for themselves). Trips to McMurdo are much cheaper, and trips to the peninsula are cheaper still (few $K) It's not a stupid question... the camera sensor was open for 45-60 sec... the equivalent time exposure for the human retina is, obviously, much shorter, more on the order of 1/30 sec (which is why TV works and we don't see our lights flicker except under certain circumstances). As such, while we are sensitive to green light over other colors, and the auroral light _is_ green, it's so faint most of the time that it's more of a ghostly grey, except during really good solar storms. When the light is intense, it _is_ a stunning green, with reds and other colors occasionally, depending on the energy of the particles, the altitude that has maximal excitement, etc (Nitrogen and Oxygen can glow different colors (red/green) depending on their precise concentration and what quantum states are involved in photon release). When seeing "red" aurorae at Pole, the most common expresson are red fringes at the bottoms of green curtains. I've seen red pillars in Ohio, but those were caused by a different specific transition than red fringes. One of the oddest ones I saw last year was like a tube of Aquafresh had been squirted across the sky - horizon to horizon, a narrow (twice the width of the moon) wavy ribbon that was green, white, and red. I'd never seen the red that concentrated before. I have a few other pictures that need to be tweaked before I can put them up... the ones with some moonlight look like they were composited long enough to have the aurorae visible really accumulate even a little bit of moonlight. Unfortunately, I didn't take my 35mm (Pentax P3) out much - probably only twice, and most of those shots have *huge* static streaks across the film - like green lightning forks going from edge to edge of the slide frame. They are caused by actual static discharges generating light inside the camera. The static buildup is caused by advancing the film in uber-dry air. :-( -ethan

Man I must be a skywatcher because I was only in CA for 4 years and I saw two Vandenberg rocket launches in that time. No advance warning, just look up and it was there. They launched them right after dusk across the sun terminator seemingly for extra effect.... Looked great! John A.

It could just be an aspect of certain Olympus products. I have an ancient Olympus digital (5.3 years old) that does fantastically well at multisecond times. John A.

Yes, but I can;'t afford a 5*4" digital back for my monorail. And even then I am told film still has a higher resolution. I hate to tell you this, but a good 35mm image is normally regarded as being equivalent to 12--20 megapixels. 6 megapixels is not enough IMHO. Well, until some custom component fails and you can't get a replacement, anyway. One good thing about the old, mechanical, film cameras is that most parts could be made in a good home workshop (and they don't tend to fail anyway). Well, I've never actually used a Canon camera, but I believe they're pretty good. So my question is bascially 'what were you doing wrong with it'. Because it should be capable of giving much better images than a 6 megapixel digital camera. I think we can discount any problems with the lens. Canon lenses are good, and anyway it's hard to mess up the design of a standard lens. I know of only one poor standard lens -- the Myers Domiplan. But anyway... I'm a bit worried by your choice of film. To me, 800 ASA is a fast film, which will have coarse grain. I normally preder something slower than 100ASA. And then there's the issue of developing and printing it. These high-street places can ruin a picture from even the best camera :-(. Personally, I'd take slides (thus eliminating the printing stage) and probably process the film myself (not at all hard to do). FInally, I am sure you're aware that camera shake ruins more pictures than anything else. Use a tripod! -tony

I will take a look. I'd like to make a camera one day, even though I've got plenty of commercial ones around (much as I like making computers, even though I've got plenty of those too). You can get a second-hand large-format camera for a few hundred pounds, and about the same for a lens/shutter. In other words less than a good digital camera. Sheet film is not cheap, but then again nor is the equipment and supplies to print from a digital camera. And the quality is nothing short of spectacular. Large format cameras are really suitable for taking snapshots (although they were used for newspaper work in the 1950s and before). If you want to take snapshots, well, I'd use a 35mm camera, you'd probably get some digital thing. But if you want to take top-quality pictures of static subjects (architecture, landsapes, classic computers, etc), then large format is, IMHO, the only way to go. -tony

Paul Koning wrote: Well I'mm looking at that set of books now ... They keep going and going and going... I was thinking the book "Plastic injection molding machine" might be useful for duplicating small parts like switch handles or other plastic parts. Ben alias woodelf.

Oh, I know of Lindsay Books. In England, there's a company called 'Camden Miniature Steam Services' who sell all sorts of interesting books, mostly on steam engines and railways (not a great interest of mine), but enough books on real radio, electical stuff, horology, general engineering, etc that I've spent a small fortune with them over the years. They sell many, but not all, of the Lindsay books. FWIW, I have nothing but praise for the service I've received from Camden's. In all my orders they've made just one mistake (2 books with exactly the same title. they sent the wrong one). And they put it right with no fuss. I am not sure how many of these are actually Lindsay books, but I've bought reprints of books on short-wave radio from the 1930s, books on making electric clocks, telescopes, cameras, etc. Books of general workshop hints and tips (and to be honest, if I use just one of the tips operation. And many more.... -tony