What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
131 Comments
- DrMatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+171That's wild. Before the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges were built! You can also see square grid pattern of streets the architects used. Trivia: The reason SF has streets going straight up hills (making driving a manual car a bit difficult), is that the city planner didn't see the topographical map of the city, so he/she just laid out a standard grid pattern for the city streets.
- mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+132heres an article about the guy who took the picture and the camera rig he invented to do it
http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/george_lawrence.html - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+104Amazing how a camera from 1906 captured so much detail
- Cobainy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+72You are correct sir, which is also how the steepest street in existence came to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Street,_Dunedin - InSeverance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+55One of the most amazing photos ever taken.
Obviously not contextually, a terrible disaster - but it captures the magnitude of the disaster very well, especially looking down the main road/avenue in the middle of the picture. - Cobainy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+53Possibly some form of airship is my guess, though its a stab in the dark.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+48You have a 7000x2748 monitor?
- kaffein, on 10/11/2007, -0/+44@mattxb,
Wow that makes this photo even more amazing... - KanedaMGM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+43Endersgame-
You can't see much damage?? Over half the city is rubble. As for a point of reference the center of the image is Market street. - CoreBurn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+38Make sure your viewing the image full size and not letting your browser rescale it for you.
- xconverge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36kites is how he did it. amazing.
- GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+38@scottylist, "1906 and "High-Res" is an OxyMoron."
As someone who only shoots digital, currently with a Nikon D80, film is a better investment. You can get a 8 x 10" large format camera, and every time a new scanner comes out, your "megapixels" will also be bumped up, on all the photos you've ever taken (and kept the negatives of). That's the beauty of it. There is just so much detail captured on large format cameras, modern cameras simply have no comparison. A 35mm camera shoots at ~20 megapixels, depending on the scanner you use. Large format cameras will start to look muddy at a personal estimate of ~400 megapixels, and we're no where near that with either scanners or digital (hand held) cameras.
Keep in mind, the most megapixels you'll find on a "prosumer" dSLR is about 16.0, and that's a the very high end.
There's just no comparison between the two. Today's CCD and CMOS sensors are a maximum of about 16 x 24 mm, larger for specialty uses. How can you believe a 16 x 24 mm device is higher quality than a 800 x 1000 mm device?
Film > Digital, in terms of quality / resolution / sharpness. Digital's only redeeming factor is ease-of-use. Scanning a 35mm negative from a $100 film camera on a $4900 scanner will give better results than a digital image from a $5000 digital camera.
This comment was way too long, but I hope it helped. - WayneOfSpades, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35Buried as century old news.
/sarcasm
Otherwise, that is one impressive shot. - Aeaus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37Ultra High Resolution cameras are nothing new, but they're limited to a lower process due to their size, and that they don't work well as digital (sensor resolutions aren't high enough). That said, this is one damn incredible shot.
- stukdog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33Here is a nice flickr set of some photos taken right after the earthquake. For a while, cameras were not allowed on the peninsula, but this photographer got in and took some great shots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stucki/sets/72057594120244683/ - aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+30kadeem-
Judging by the cracks in the picture, I'd guess that this picture was taken with emulsion on a glass plate, probably still wet. The frame was probably 16-22 inches wide, so that would make it 6-8 inches tall. That gives us between 96 and 176 square inches of photographic medium. With that kind of real estate, you're not going to be limited in resolution by your film, but by your lens. Check eBay for turn-of-the-century large format lenses. They don't cost a lot just because they're collector's items. - scatfly, on 10/11/2007, -10/+38how did they get 2000 ft up?
- lfernandez91, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31Using IE?
- benijuana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25with or without the earthquake devastation, its amazing to see how the area looked 100 years ago.
and imagine the rent back then... - firedrillduckie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21That's an amazing picture.
I'm not gonna lie, it was worth my browser crashing. - Margh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18It says on the image it was taken from the "Captive Airship", which research tells me was a series of kites on piano wire.
- CRG000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20The most famous KAP photo ever (KAP is Kite Aerial Photography)
- aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21Hot air balloon?
- AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Nice find, mattxb!
- kuyman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14You... Are a horrible excuse for a person.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17damn, I wish I could go back in time and buy some of those open patches of real estate!
- 4UIDigg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Yes, the building ruins can be seen if zoomed in, especially around the Market St area.
- djphatjive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Sometimes is amazes me how they did stuff back then. I would have never guessed a kite.
- withoutashovel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16nothing looks wrong.. *clicks on picture*.. oh, i take that back. that truly is amazing detail
- mre5765, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11It is interesting how many high rise buildings did *not* collapse.
- AMSRay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Near the bottom of the photo there are two ferries docked. These were used to evacuate the citizens during the fire. I believe one of these is on display in San Diego at the museum in the harbor.
- Firemeboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10You can see a lot of tents set up. I wonder if that was for folks without homes, or folks trying to clean things up. Great pic.
- kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10They called it a "Captive Airship". What a great name.
I can just imagine those old time voices calling it that.
Say, partner, that's a lofty conveyance. - ghm101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Emergency response in 1905 for San Francisco was so much more effective than that for New Orleans with Katrina.
- giid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Here's the photographer's 1908 photo, also from a captive airship. Not exactly the same view point, but interesting none the less. You can get an idea of what a lot of the buildings of the period were supposed to look like before they were burnt to the ground.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(pan+6a19592)) - datagod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12Google Earth in 1906 relied heavily on "Captive Airships" for their photos.
That either means blimps or aliens ships...not sure yet... - aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9And the not getting the joke award goes to rald84! Congratulations! You get a lifetime's supply of get a clue!
- egoviri, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8am I the only one who really wants to go play SimCity now?
- SillyRabbits, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Too bad the people trying to recreate it didn't bother to get the same height and perspective....
- ijustam, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Finally, a desktop wallpaper that I don't have to stretch to match my resolution!
- vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@giid
I grabbed the TIFF version of the 1908 photo, saved it as a JPEG image using the highest quality setting:
http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sanfrancisco1908ci5.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7025/sanfrancisco1908ci5.jpg
Original TIFF image: http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/pan/6a19000/6a19500/6a19592u.tif
via http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(pan+6a19592)) - cometador, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5On recreating George Lawrence’s kite aerial photograph one hundred years later:
http://www.drachen.org/special_events_earthquake.html - lavitus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Is there a modern equivalent? It would make a nice side by side comparison to 100 years ago.
- patch6, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6try merging two wallpapers in a graphics program
- cometador, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5http://www.drachen.org/special_events_earthquake.html
- andrewtayloruk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Surely 100 years after 1906 is 2006? Or do prophet calendars have a leap-year or something?
- mikehorn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4From: http://quake.usgs.gov/features/index.html
"On the basis of research conducted since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other scientists conclude that there is a 62% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2032. Major quakes may occur in any part of this rapidly growing region. This emphasizes the urgency for all communities in the Bay region to continue preparing for earthquakes." - mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Holy *****. You weren't kidding about it being high resolution..
- GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4misogny, somedigger5
The whole point of Digital is ridiculously short turnarounds. Even my old E-500 can shoot in studio mode, where you just plug the camera in to a computer with a USB cable and images are saved directly on the PC's hard disks. THAT is the advantage of digital.
However, it's not what the point of my post is. The point of my post is, any photographer knows that large format cameras are THE way to go for image quality. Sure, you can use $50,000 Hasselblads that are the size of a small vehicle, but even then the quality maxes out at around ~110 megapixels. Scanners are getting better and better, and you're going to be able to scan the magnificent detail of a large format negative for years and years. Scanners will always be higher quality than tiny CMOS or CCD sensors, that's a given.
Digital has many disadvantages, but they're all about image quality. I cannot think of a single thing I like more about film cameras that doesn't relate to the visual appeal...highlights aren't burned out, shadows retain detail, much better for crops and enlargements due to the sharpness...you can go on ebay, get a used 8 x 10" camera and lens for under $400, and the quality will be superb. Better than a Hasselblad. The reason people use Hasselblads is because it's just so much easier -- no processing, immedeate review, quick turnarounds, etc.
"the quality might not be as good but its a fraction of the price"
No. Quality-to-price, film's got digital beat. Scan any 35mm Velvia negative, and it'll look as good as a similar Nikon D200 shot. However, step up to medium and large formats, and film goes way beyond Digital in terms of quality. The only difference is that film cameras sell for about $200 retail, whilst dSLRs sell for about $1000 retail.
I repeat. The *only* thing that's good about digital photography is the ease of use and the quick turnarounds. You can get an image to your editor within seconds, if you've got a satelite transmitter for when you're on the road or at a sports game, doing photojournalism.
And finally, x-rays no longer damage film. Both the x-ray machines and the film have been changed to prevent this. I shoot digital 99.9% of the time, but I know some hardcore film guys who've shot thousands of dollars of 35mm, medium and large format film. None of them have ever lost anything, except for the occasional light leak. Even in the case of image security, film wins. I've had two different 4GB CF's that have been ruined by fault card readers, or have been corrupted half way through a shoot. ***** happens. On the other hand, you cannot just accidentally drop a roll of film and lose every image on it. They're sturdy little cases... - Requench, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@sillyrabbits
"Haefner was limited by FAA regulations to five hundred feet." -
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
