Airplane Photography. Herbert Eugene Ives
angular field is less than half that of the 50 centimeter lens. The 120 centimeter lens need only be designed for this small angle, with consequent greater opportunities for reduction of spherical aberration. It is therefore an open question whether a 50 centimeter lens designed to cover a plate of linear dimensions 50
120 times that used with the regular 50 centimeter lens could not be produced of such quality that it would yield enlargements equal to contacts from a 120 centimeter lens. If so, lenses of larger aperture could be used, and a considerable saving in space requirements effected.
Focal lengths during the Great War were decided by the nature of the military detail which was to be revealed and by the altitudes to which flying was restricted in military operations. In the first three years of the war the development of defences against aircraft forced planes to mount steadily higher, so that the original three or four thousand feet were pushed to 15,000, 18,000, and even higher. Lenses of long focus were in demand, leading ultimately to the use of some of as much as 120 centimeters (Fig. 41). In the last months of the war the resumption of open fighting made minute recording of trench details of less weight, while the preponderance of allied air strength permitted lower flying. In consequence, lenses of shorter focus and wider angle came to the fore, suitable for quick reconnaissance of the main features of new country. At the close of the war the following focal lengths were standard in the U. S. Air Service, and may be considered as well-suited for military needs. Peace may develop quite different requirements.
| Focal length | Aperture | Plate size |
|---|---|---|
| 10 inch | F/4.5 | 4 × 5 inch |
| 26 cm. | F/6 | 13 × 18 cm. |
| 12 inch | F/5.6 | 18 × 24 cm. |
| 20 inch | F/6.3 to F/4.5 | 18 × 24 cm. |
| 48 inch | F/10 to F/8 | 18 × 24 cm. |
The question of the use of telephoto lenses in place of lenses of long focus is frequently raised. Lenses of this type combine a diverging (concave) element with the normal converging system, whereby the effect of a long focus is secured without an equivalent lens-to-plate distance. This reduction in “back focus” may be from a quarter to a half. Were it possible to obtain the same definition with telephoto lenses as with lenses of the same equivalent focus, they would indeed be eminently suitable for aerial work because of their economy of length. But experience thus far has shown that the performance of telephoto lenses, as to definition and freedom from distortion, is distinctly inferior, so that it is best to hold to the long focus lens of the ordinary type.
Lenses Suitable for Aerial Photography.—Among the very large number of modern anastigmat lenses many were found suitable for airplane cameras and were used extensively in the war. A partial list follows: The Cooke Aviar, The Carl Zeiss Tessar, the Goerz Dogmar, the Hawkeye Aerial, the Bausch and Lomb Series Ic and IIb Tessars, the Aldis Triplet, the Berthiot Olor.
The Question of Plate Size and Shape.—Plate size is determined by a number of considerations, scientific and practical. If the type of lens is fixed by requirements as to definition, then the dimensions of the plate are limited by the covering power. From the standpoint of economy of flights and of ease of recognizing the locality represented in a negative, by its inclusion of known points, lenses of as wide angle as possible should be used. If the focus is long, this means large plates, which are bulky and heavy. If the finest rendering of detail is not required a smaller scale may be employed, utilizing short focus lenses and correspondingly smaller plates. Thus a six inch focus lens on a 4 × 5 inch plate would be as good from the standpoint of angular field as a 12 inch on an 8 × 10 inch plate. This is apt to be the condition with respect to most peace-time aerial photography, which may be expected to free itself quickly from the huge plates and cameras of war origin.
For work in which great freedom from distortion of any sort is imperative, small plates will be necessary, for two reasons. One is that the characteristic lens distortions are largely confined to the outlying portions of the field. The other is that a wide angle of view inevitably means that all objects of any elevation at the edge of the picture are shown partly in face as well as in plan, which prevents satisfactory joining of successive views (Fig. 128). In making a mosaic map of a city, if a wide angle lens is employed with large plates, the buildings lying along the junctions of the prints can be matched up only for one level. If this is the ground level, as it would be to keep the scale of the map correct, the roofs will have to be sacrificed. In extreme cases a house at the edge of a junction may even show merely as a front and rear, with no roof, while in any case the abrupt change at these edges from seeing one side of all objects to seeing the opposite side is not pleasing.
The table in a preceding section gives the relation of plate size to focal length found best on the whole for military needs. Deviations from these proportions in both directions are met with. In the English service the LB camera, which uses 4 × 5 inch plates, is equipped with lenses of various focal lengths, up to 20 inches. The German practice, as well as the Italian, was almost uniform use of 13 × 18 centimeter plates for all focal lengths. Toward the end of the war, however, some German cameras of 50 centimeter focal length were in use employing plates 24 × 30 centimeters.
It will be recognized that these plate sizes are chosen from those in common use before the war. A similar observation holds with even greater force on the question of plate shape. Current plate shapes have been chosen chiefly with reference to securing pleasing or artistic effects with the common types of pictures taken on the ground. These shapes are not necessarily the best for aerial photography. Indeed the whole question of plate shape should be taken up from the beginning, with direct reference to the problems of aerial photography and photographic apparatus.
A few illustrations will make this clear, taking Fig. 17 as a basis. If it is desired to do spotting (the photography of single objectives), the best plate shape would be circular, for that shape utilizes the entire covering area of the lens. If it is desired to make successive overlapping pictures, either for mapping, or for the production of stereoscopic pairs, a rectangular shape is indicated. If the process of plate changing is difficult or slow, it is advisable, in order to give maximum time for this operation, to have the long side of the rectangle parallel to the line of flight (indicated by the arrow). If economy of flights is a consideration, as in making a mosaic map of a large area, it is advantageous to have as wide a plate as the covering power of the lens will permit. Reference to Fig. 17 shows that this means a plate of small dimensions in the direction of flight. If the changing of plates or film is quick and easy, the maximum use of the lens's covering power is made by such a rectangle whose long side approximates the dimensions of the lens field diameter. This is in fact the choice made in the German film mapping camera (Figs. 61 and 63), whose picture is 6 × 24 centimeters. An objection to this from the pictorial side, lies in the many junction lines cutting up the mosaic. Another objection, if the plane does not hold a steady course, is the failure to make overlaps on a turn. (Fig. 62.) Here as everywhere the problem is to decide on the most practical compromise between all requirements.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa,