Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by semi-extrinsic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

semi-extrinsic

I'm not sure I agree... This [1] is from Apollo 17, and I don't think the quality is any worse than these new ones.

[1] http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-...

View on HN

Hasselblads cameras was used in the Apollo missions. [1]

Twelve hasselblad cameras were left behind on the moons surface.

It was not that many years ago, around y2k or shortly thereafter if I remember correctly, that hasselblad finally decided that digital photography could match the picture quality their cameras achieved using traditional/analog film and started to manufacture digital options for their cameras.

When I look at the pictures from the moon I start to understand why they held a stiff upper lip for so many years.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad#Hasselblad_cameras_...

As a photographer, I sometimes think my complete switch to digital might have been a mistake. I can't call myself a professional photohrapher because I make very little money off my pictures.

That said, I wish I didn't get rid of my old cameras, and 2.8 lenses. I wish I still had my BW darkroom still set up in my closet.

My pictures are all color now. They are technically fine, but my older pictures just look more interesting.

I'm a complete amateur at photography, but can you give me some details in the difference in outcomes between your BW setup and just passing your color pictures through a BW filter?

Convert them to black and white and they will look just as interesting:D

IIRC there were some internal setbacks in the process towards digital Hasselblads when they changed owners a few times in the late 90's and early 00's. So it wasn't all stiff-upper-lip.

And when they did go digital, it was slightly ridiculous. I mean, the cheapest option of the H3DII which launched in 2007 had 50% more megapixels than the most expensive Canon or Nikon camera you could buy that year. With almost twice the sensor area of a full-format DSLR the pixel count wasn't for show either. One of those low-end H3DII bodies (without a lens) in OK condition goes for more than $2000 today.

This is true, but keep in mind that higher-resolution, bigger digital backs (in comparison with fully integrated dslr cameras) were already on the market. Even so, Hasselblad lead that market for a time, then lost ground due to flagging innovation, bad decisions, etc.

Y2K was approximately when the consumer digital camera went on market.

It was earlier than that. I remember a relative owning an Apple QuickTake in the mid 90s and Wikipedia reckons they went on sale in ’94: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake . I personally had a Samsung digital camera in 1998; it took a max of 128Mb SmartMedia cards.

I sold cameras from 90-91 and we were selling the first DSLR during that period. Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, just that we referred to it as "The Brick" because it weighed 2-3 times as much as the next comparable SLR, cost even more, and the pictures weren't nearly as good.

Note that there isn't something especially mystic or technologically important about old Hasselblad cameras.

It's just that they are medium format cameras, and used larger size film, which gives more resolution.

But that's not unique to Hasselblad -- lots of companies had (and some still have) medium format analog cameras at the time.

the fact that the government (NASA) used them, only proves they were settling to sell their equipment for less (it's usually more in invoice, but less when you account what you lost on red tape)

Actually government contracts can be very easy to overcharge.

I suppose in that case, they had the bandwidth to send the high-def pictures back to Earth, because they didn't need to transmit a digital picture via radio transmission, they simply brought the film back from the moon with them.

Never underestimate the bandwith of a lunar module full of film?

That photo looks fantastic! It makes me sad we haven't sent people back to the moon in almost half a century.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com