Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thanks Bob I think your pretty close I asked the pilot and he told me 45-60 degrees angle of coverage.Mathematically using tangent function and 3000 feet as the adjacent leg ....
HC 100 has horizontal angle of view of 25 diagonal angle of view of 31 degrees.
Field looking straight down should have a radius of 660 feet on the horizontal angle and 900 feet on the diagonal angle.
So 1300 feet or 1800 feet across ... now rotate your pointing of the camera and you have your field of vision which could be plotted on a topographic map.
Not a lot of help but perhaps someone who does it regularly could opine.
Uwe Steinmueller was active on the thread and LuLa until his death in 2014 ... he had a passion for arial landscapes and I found a flickr folder of them
here:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=aerial&user_id=33828520@N00&view_all=1
But there does not appear to be metadata to figure out lens information.
Perhaps a general search on Flickr for arial photos and then look for those with camera and lens information. Look for the angles of view in the lens specs from that
point and apply them to your question.
I used to fly a lot in California and 1800 to 2000 was sublime.
Sounds like a great project.
Regards,
Bob
Good suggestions, but I think the OP is flying at 1500' AGL and not 3000' AGL. My understanding was he was confused about the differences between above ground level (AGL) and mean sea level (MSL). With that in mind though, it might be good to use a quality UV/haze filter too. Chandler, AZ. was a location where I was considering aerobatic training in a Great Lakes Biplane.Having done quite a bit of aerial photography over the years as well as being pilot in command of an aircraft with a photographer as my passenger on both ground photography and air to air photography missions, I don't think shooting from 3000 feet AGL is going to be optimal. You are shooting through a lot of atmosphere when you do that - a straight down shot is .6 miles and as soon as you angle the camera even slightly you are shooting out several miles resulting in a lot of haze even on clear days. Additionally, at that altitude, the hills will pretty much disappear and it will look more like flat fields. My preference for this type of photography is to shoot from 500 to 1500 feet, depending on the terrain. If you are shooting patterns of land, like river deltas then 2000 feet is very good but if you want contour in the land, go much much lower than 3000 feet. Do this with a pilot that has experience at flying close to the ground, helicopters with no doors are preferable but it can easily be done from a fixed wing aircraft and many of those are approved to fly without the cargo door. Whatever you do, make sure the pilot is experienced with this type of flying.
Ah OK, I didn't read all of the responses carefully so I missed that. For rolling hills with flowers, that's about the maximum altitude I'd try. A UV filter may be redundant with filtration built into the sensor cover glass/filter depending on the camera/sensor/lens being used - I don't use them for this type of work. Yup I believe it's Chandler Air Service that offers that training. They have a relatively popular airport eatery there too for the $250 hamburger I did my aerobatic training in a Citabria at AEG and SAF.Good suggestions, but I think the OP is flying at 1500' AGL and not 3000' AGL. My understanding was he was confused about the differences between above ground level (AGL) and mean sea level (MSL). With that in mind though, it might be good to use a quality UV/haze filter too. Chandler, AZ. was a location where I was considering aerobatic training in a Great Lakes Biplane.
Right! I forgot about the sensor UV. It use to be a $100 dollar burger! I use to own a Citabria GCBC, not quite as aerobatic as the Decathalon, but does the trick. Happy flying!Ah OK, I didn't read all of the responses carefully so I missed that. For rolling hills with flowers, that's about the maximum altitude I'd try. A UV filter may be redundant with filtration built into the sensor cover glass/filter depending on the camera/sensor/lens being used - I don't use them for this type of work. Yup I believe it's Chandler Air Service that offers that training. They have a relatively popular airport eatery there too for the $250 hamburger I did my aerobatic training in a Citabria at AEG and SAF.