randrew1

<p>John's video is very good, but I don't find that it recreates the drone effect. The most impressive part of the drone video (and the most dangerous) are when the fiery projectiles go past the drone. That can't be simulated from a ground position no matter how much you zoom in. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The video is stunning, but I share some of the safety concerns.<br /><br />A question for those more familiar with these drones: Other video's I've seen from a Phantom-GoPro combination looked jerky with frequent attitude corrections. Is the Phantom II much improved or were the attitude corrections edited out?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Some great shots!<br> If you can shoot with both eyes open, you may; be able to see when the pitcher is delivering. From the first base side, this might require using your left eye on the viewfinder. I haven't tried that. Viewing right eyed from the 3rd base side works well for me.</p>

<p>I met then chief-of-staff Howard Baker briefly in 1986. I was attending a photography trade fair at National Geographic on a customer awareness trip. Kodak used to occasionally let engineers out of Rochester to meet real customers. Baker had walked over from the White House to talk shop with the NG photographers and various company reps. </p>

<p>As another old camera collector (who just acquired a camera that can use either plate holders or roll film), I have to agree with JDM. My Nikon D200 gave me images that were consistently better than 35mm film. My current D600 goes way beyond that. My film use is now very specialized:</p> <ul> <li>a single-use film camera to take where the risk to a camera is high</li> <li>Grandpa's old 4x5 Crown Graphic for family reunions so the older generation can joke about the number of kids in the family who have waited to have their picture taken with that camera.</li> <li>Kodachrome up through 2010 for nostalgia</li> </ul> <p>Although I spent decades as a photographic engineer working on many aspects of film, as a photographer, I use the tool that suits the purpose. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The economics for Kodak have changed. Two years ago, they were selling a lot of motion picture film. That market is mostly gone now. If they can continue to produce still film for the next 2 years, then they have a reasonable chance of lasting for a number of years. If Kodak ends film production, I expect Fuji (who never had a big share of motion picture film) to last longer. I expect Ilford will be the last film manufacturer. </p> <p>Kodak Alaris markets Kodak silll film and kiosks. Film is still manufactured by Kodak.</p>

<div></div>

Pictures at a sporting event that show something other than the event itself.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>1.5 stops is a lot, but 13 years is a very long time, especially for a higher speed film. It might lose that much speed. </p>

<p>The only way you will know for sure is to process the film. It might be OK. There could be some edge fog. It is unlikely entire images were lost.</p> <p>FWIW, "120" is an arbitrary number that designates the format. Nothing about the film measures 120 mm. It is about 60 mm wide. </p> <p>I'm picking at nits here, but while 35 mm film is <strong>rewound</strong> into the cassette after use, 120 film is <strong>wound</strong> completely onto the take-up spool</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>