View Full Version : A camera that was used in the Manhattan Project (Atmic Bomb Drop on Nagasaki)
Some of you may know that I have an old 8x10 [or is it a 10x10 camera?] camera with a huge 362mm 1.66 lens. I have been researching its history for about 15 years by now. I can see from the brass plate on it that it was used at the Philadelphia Naval Yard.
The camera comes with three lenses:
1. Kodak Ektar 362mm f1.66
2. Bausch & Lomb 14.5 inch f2.2 (I have two of them)
There are no serial numbers on the lenses, suggesting that these were custom made by Kodak for the "cause".
This system is referred to as "Lenticular":
I have at least one earlier thread on this camera, but I did only find out this morning what it really was used for.
link: http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/007l93
With some help from several people online, I finally learned that this was one of the first 3D cameras [TRIVISION] that were invented by Douglas Winnek.
link: http://www.lenstar.org/history/ch3b.htm
Kelly is Winnek's daughter [actually, Kelly is his son]My Dad's diary reflects that your camera was assigned to US Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth who was the lead atomic weaponeer on the Army Air Corp's B-29 bomber, "Bockscar", that dropped the "Fat Man" atomic weapon on Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945. Take good care of it and enjoy owning a piece of history
I may want to donate this camera to a National museum where people can enjoy seeing the camera. I initially considered donating the camera to the Physics Department at my university, but it looks as if its historical value overshadows its role as an optic display for students to look at.
What do you think about it!
J J Kapsberger
08-28-2008, 06:15
Did you say three lenses?
First link doesn't work.
direwolf101
08-28-2008, 06:18
Very interesting, Raid. Thanks for sharing.
Al Patterson
08-28-2008, 06:26
Neat! I would have thought that something that rare would already be in a museum. Bockscar and a Fat man mockup are in the Air Force Museum in Dayton. Maybe they would appreciate having a camera that is related to those items.
I agree Raid.. that's some incredible history you've got on your hands there. Donating to a national museum is a good idea.
Cheers
Dave
Very interesting piece of history even if it is connected with one of the biggest mistakes ever. Imagine that call...."kokura is covered in fog, we can see anything." other side of the line replies "ok whats the next city on the list?" not a good day.
Did you say three lenses?
First link doesn't work.
Yes, I have three lenses or maybe even four if you count an extender or doubler lens. Each lens weighs over 30 pounds.
Very interesting, Raid. Thanks for sharing.
It is a part of our history, and I wanted to share this with you here. It is not everyday that we get to encounter such items. I have had the camera since the early nineties.
Neat! I would have thought that something that rare would already be in a museum. Bockscar and a Fat man mockup are in the Air Force Museum in Dayton. Maybe they would appreciate having a camera that is related to those items.
Al,
Yes, the Bockscar is in Dayton, Ohio.
The Enola Gay is at the Smithsonian's Udvar Hazy Museum (Virginia).
I may contact both museums.
Very interesting piece of history even if it is connected with one of the biggest mistakes ever. Imagine that call...."kokura is covered in fog, we can see anything." other side of the line replies "ok whats the next city on the list?" not a good day.
I know how feelings can be stirred by memories of the atomic bombs and their dropping on Japan. I will not get into this here. I just want to share the news about a camera that I have.
I get your point.
I agree Raid.. that's some incredible history you've got on your hands there. Donating to a national museum is a good idea.
Cheers
Dave
Dave,
It is good that my camera is not Camera X but camera XI. A national museum will preserve the camera better than anyone else so that future generations are reminded of the horrors of war.
I know how feelings can be stirred by memories of the atmoc bombs and their dropping on Japan. I will not get into this here. I just want to share the news about a camera that I have.
I get your point.
Yeah, I didnt need to mention that I guess. My bad. Veeeeery long day.
I do like the idea that you have this camera though, test time ;)
LOL
Let's get all Manhattan Project cameras to me so that I have an outside test!
At the end, my neighborhood will be "glowing with joy" ....
Tuolumne
08-28-2008, 07:08
One word: Wow!
/T
Raid that is an amazing camera. What a beast! Have you used it? If so, What for? Post some pics, man!
RE: The historical value - it seems to me that a museum would want to curate first the photos, and then at least two of the cameras. Do any others survive? Have you contacted the museum at Los Alamos?
Raid that is an amazing camera. What a beast! Have you used it? If so, What for? Post some pics, man!
RE: The historical value - it seems to me that a museum would want to curate first the photos, and then at least two of the cameras. Do any others survive? Have you contacted the museum at Los Alamos?
John,
I have never used the camera.
Such cameras that are used in airplanes often have an external motorized film back. My camera came to me without a back. I asked a camera repairman at first about carfting a back for me, but I was not sure whether the focus would always be on infinity or not. I was thinking of using it for portraits.
Winnek's daughter may know more than anyone else about the survival of the Dad's cameras.
The Smithsonian is a good place to ask about donating this camera Raid.
Cheers!
photomoof
08-28-2008, 07:53
I can't comment on your camera, since there is no photo of it, however the cameras for the bombing were carried in another plane, Big Stink (B-29) which shadowed the bomber Bockscar.
Not sure I would trust her account, since by all reports I could find the Navy did not accept his cameras until after the war (1947).
Roger Hicks
08-28-2008, 07:56
Dear Raid,
A fascinating story! Thanks.
Is it 8x10 or 10x10? I thought I recalled the latter as a standard aerial photography size, but my knowledge of aerial cameras is negligible.
Cheers,
Roger
The National Atomic Museum is located here in Albuquerque, just another possbility. Definitely an interesting piece of history, however good or bad the history was.
I am alive today because of the bombs. My father was in the invasion force headed to Japan when the bombs were dropped. As a 21 year old private, he was stationed in Hiroshima in the 3 week of Aug. 1945.
chris91387
08-28-2008, 08:30
get out there and do some street photography with that bad boy.
ok, maybe not, but at the very least find some film and test the hell out of the lenses on your lovely family....then post the results.
great story, raid. your idea of donating it to a worthy museum is a fine gesture.
- chris
Double Negative
08-28-2008, 08:30
That is incredible...
Hard to believe such bright lenses were needed in such bright light. ;)
Tell ya what, since it's so old... I'll give ya fifty bucks. Whaddya say? :D
get out there and do some street photography with that bad boy.
ok, maybe not, but at the very least find some film and test the hell out of the lenses on your lovely family....then post the results.
great story, raid. your idea of donating it to a worthy museum is a fine gesture.
- chris
Just need to mount it on a shopping cart.
I can't comment on your camera, since there is no photo of it, however the cameras for the bombing were carried in another plane, Big Stink (B-29) which shadowed the bomber Bockscar.
Not sure I would trust her account, since by all reports I could find the Navy did not accept his cameras until after the war (1947).
Fred,
Maybe your computer has problems, but I have two photos of the camera in the first posting above.
Dear Raid,
A fascinating story! Thanks.
Is it 8x10 or 10x10? I thought I recalled the latter as a standard aerial photography size, but my knowledge of aerial cameras is negligible.
Cheers,
Roger
Hello Roger,
There is no film back with the camera, and it could have been a 10x10 camera as much as I can tell. It is squarish in dimensions.
Now that's about stealth photography...
That is incredible...
Hard to believe such bright lenses were needed in such bright light. ;)
Tell ya what, since it's so old... I'll give ya fifty bucks. Whaddya say? :D
I was initially informed by some optics experts that maybe the camera [and very fast lens] were used in physics lab experiments and in X-Ray experiments. The max aperture of 1.66 is unsual for a 10x10 camera. The lens hood is impressive looking.
CameraQuest
08-28-2008, 09:59
This thread made me realize RFF did not have a photographic history forum.
That is no longer the case.
Stephen
I can't comment on your camera, since there is no photo of it, however the cameras for the bombing were carried in another plane, Big Stink (B-29) which shadowed the bomber Bockscar.
Not sure I would trust her account, since by all reports I could find the Navy did not accept his cameras until after the war (1947).
Fred,
Winnek's daughter is saying that this camera was used before the bombing too place and not during the actual bombing. Taking her words, she is reading about it in her father's diary.
Maybe there exist records on the meeting between Winnek and the President. I am not a historian.
This thread made me realize RFF did not have a photographic history forum.
That is no longer the case.
Stephen
... and I am honored to have the first thread in the new photographic history forum, Stephen.
photomoof
08-28-2008, 10:12
Fred,
Maybe your computer has problems, but I have two photos of the camera in the first posting above.
All I can see is the front of the lens, and a very slight side view in the first photo. While the first photo does give some hint of what the camera looks like, it is nothing I have been able to use easily to research it in my books.
Although the metal "stripe" looks pretty distinctive.
photomoof
08-28-2008, 10:27
Fred,
Winnek's daughter is saying that this camera was used before the bombing too place and not during the actual bombing. Taking her words, she is reading about it in her father's diary.
Maybe there exist records on the meeting between Winnek and the President. I am not a historian.
Yes I see that, she is referring to a preflight by the Enola Gay:
The same camera was used on a preflight over Hiroshima on the Enola Gay several days before the actual bombing of that city. It was not, however, on that particular mission. Camera X was on that mission.
All pretty confusing, historically, since the Enola Gay is widely reported not to have flown over Hiroshima prior to the bombing, however her father may have thought it did, or maybe secretly it did?
Anyway, there must be photos of this camera somewhere. I have not found any myself, and doubt it would be easy without a visit to the national archives. She did not provide you with any photos?
Edit:
From the design and later papers he delivered my guess is that this is a lab camera, it just does not seem like any aerials I have ever seen. (I have only owned Japanese aerial cameras)
This appears to be the only photo on the web besides yours
http://www.lenstar.org/history/images/ch3_img5.gif
Yes I see that, she is referring to a preflight by the Enola Gay:
The same camera was used on a preflight over Hiroshima on the Enola Gay several days before the actual bombing of that city. It was not, however, on that particular mission. Camera X was on that mission.
All pretty confusing, historically, since the Enola Gay did not fly over Hiroshima prior to the bombing, however her father may have thought it did.
Anyway, there must be photos of this camera somewhere. I have not found any myself, and doubt it would be easy without a visit to the national archives. She did not provide you with any photos?
I can take extra photos of the camera tonight and post them here.
Roger Hicks
08-28-2008, 11:36
I am alive today because of the bombs. My father was in the invasion force headed to Japan when the bombs were dropped. As a 21 year old private, he was stationed in Hiroshima in the 3 week of Aug. 1945.
All counterfactual conditionals are true. It is easy to say today that the atomic bombing of Japan was a mistake, and it may have been so, with the advantage of hindsight. Equally, it is easy for you to say, "I am alive today because..."
But we can never know. I think it arrogant to say today that Japan should not have been bombed that way (Edit: I fully realize this is not your assertion). Maybe it's true. Maybe it's false. Which route would you (or I, or anyone else) have chosen, with access only to the information available in 1944?
The late George McDonald Fraser went to the heart of the argument. Let us assume that Allied casualties would have been 20,000 greater if the bomb had not been dropped, but that the Allies would still have won. Would your mother have volunteered your father as one of those 20,000? Would your wife volunteer you? Would you volunteer yourself?
Yes, war is hell. Both my grandfathers were killed at sea, one off Crete and one on the Russian convoys. It's now fairly clear that 'Bomber' Harris made exaggerated claims for the power of the air force in terror-bombing Germany: think of Dresden. But shortening the war by a year, a month, a day, a minute, must have looked like a pretty good idea at the time.
And none of this diminishes Raid's researches (congratulations, Raid) or the importance of this camera.
Cheers (if that's the word)
R.
Windscale
08-28-2008, 11:37
Very interesting piece of history even if it is connected with one of the biggest mistakes ever. Imagine that call...."kokura is covered in fog, we can see anything." other side of the line replies "ok whats the next city on the list?" not a good day.
It was no mistake. It was an act that relieved billions of people from suffering under the Japanese. The number of Japanese killed by the two bombs was only a small fraction of the number of Chinese killed by them. And even now the Japs still would not like to admit that they were the aggressors in WWII and still keep on denying such acts as the Nanking Massacre.
sepiareverb
08-28-2008, 11:44
From that first image it looks like it was built out of my mother's old Samsonite train case!
Yes, a horrible event, but not a mistake.
U.S. firebombing of Tokyo & other cities had already taken a larger toll, albeit over a longer period of time.
As Roger pointed out in his post, war is hell & the idea of shortening the war, not to mention taking revenge, certainly looked like a "pretty good idea @ the time." My mother used to say, "it's a good thing that the Americans got the bomb 1st, because if the Chinese had, we wouldn't have stopped @ 2."
It was no mistake. It was an act that relieved billions of people from suffering under the Japanese. The number of Japanese killed by the two bombs was only a small fraction of the number of Chinese killed by them. And even now the Japs still would not like to admit that they were the aggressors in WWII and still keep on denying such acts as the Nanking Massacre.
willie_901
08-28-2008, 12:10
Raid,
Sell this camera.
All you have to do is find the best international auction house that deals in rare historical items related to WW-II.
Put the $$$ in a college fund for your lovely daughters.
willie
chris91387
08-28-2008, 12:22
i, sadly, sense this discussion venturing off course and heading towards a political debate about "war" rather than keeping the focus on the interesting history of this special camera.
- chris
I am not interested in discussing the events of WWII in this forum or anywhere else at RFF. This is about the history of a camera. Wars can be horrible; I know. I am from Iraq.
I spent over 15 years asking knowledgeable individuals about information on this camera. I started with Bob Shell, the former editor of Shutterbug. He took my inquiry to some big shot collectors [Nolan ...], but their extensive data bases did not include a listing of this camera. At one time, an inquiry was sent to the Rochester museum, and also no records were found of the lenses.
I learned a few things about physics [I hope] over the years by reading the material given in some links on the Lenticular system and so so. This camera was bought by the previous owner at some Navy base.
He had the camera for sale for $5000 at a local camera swap meeting, followed by $3000 the next year. I had a table with SLR equipment for sale, and he saw my interest in the camera. In the end, he just came to my table and started to jot down info on lenses and cameras I had for sale. Then he just informed me that "we will trade". I was given no options! What a guy.
Two big man carried the camera to the van and then drove it to my flat. I haved the camera since then.
Using a Geiger counter I made sure that the radiation is minimal.
Anyways, maybe I got lucky here.
My two kids would benefit from having extra cash in their education funds.
Raid,
Sell this camera.
All you have to do is find the best international auction house that deals in rare historical items related to WW-II.
Put the $$$ in a college fund for your lovely daughters.
willie
Willie,
You sound like what my wife told me today.
From that first image it looks like it was built out of my mother's old Samsonite train case!
The camera does not look pretty at all. Even a dorm fridge looks better than that.
And none of this diminishes Raid's researches (congratulations, Raid) or the importance of this camera.
Cheers (if that's the word)
R.
Thank you, Roger.
I was more active in research 15 years ago than I am now. :D
photomoof
08-28-2008, 14:09
I spent over 15 years asking knowledgeable individuals about information on this camera. I started with Bob Shell, the former editor of Shutterbug. He took my inquiry to some big shot collectors [Nolan ...], but their extensive data bases did not include a listing of this camera. At one time, an inquiry was sent to the Rochester museum, and also no records were found of the lenses.
Shell would not have known much, but I am surprised that no one found anything at Rochester, my guess is that it was simply too much of a prototype at the time. There is no telling how much of what the inventor was saying was hype or hope, and how much the Navy was really paying attention.
I learned a few things about physics [I hope] over the years by reading the material given in some links on the Lenticular system and so so. This camera was bought by the previous owner at some Navy base.
The fact that the camera had a Navy marking probably means it finally entered the General Services Administration resale system, and was sold to someone with access, like a university employee, or government contractor, someone with GSA access.
He had the camera for sale for $5000 at a local camera swap meeting, followed by $3000 the next year. I had a table with SLR equipment for sale, and he saw my interest in the camera. In the end, he just came to my table and started to jot down info on lenses and cameras I had for sale. Then he just informed me that "we will trade". I was given no options! What a guy.
Not sure what this would bring at auction, but the couple of thousand you paid (?) is probably about right. Usually these Items go pretty low, but you never know.
The fact it was marked Navy rather than DASA (Defense Atomic Support Agency) does mean it was not used in the post war testing phase. I have owned a few DASA marked lenses and cameras.
Shown -- one of my DASA lenses, it was never tested for radioactivity.
Fred has asked me for additional photos of the camera.
I have taken new ones here.
Three more images follow here
Shell would not have known much, but I am surprised that no one found anything at Rochester, my guess is that it was simply too much of a prototype at the time. There is no telling how much of what the inventor was saying was hype or hope, and how much the Navy was really paying attention.
I will stay in touch with his daughter to find out any additional information.
The fact that the camera had a Navy marking probably means it finally entered the General Services Administration resale system, and was sold to someone with access, like a university employee, or government contractor, someone with GSA access.
I somehow believe that things were different.
Not sure what this would bring at auction, but the couple of thousand you paid (?) is probably about right. Usually these Items go pretty low, but you never know.
I will not list the camera on an auction.
The fact it was marked Navy rather than DASA (Defense Atomic Support Agency) does mean it was not used in the post war testing phase. I have owned a few DASA marked lenses and cameras.
What is the historical significance of being used or not used by the DASA?
Roger Hicks
08-28-2008, 14:21
I was more active in research 15 years ago than I am now. :D
Dear Raid,
I fear we all were...
My comments on war were intended more as a pair of philosophical points. One was about counterfactual conditionals, even when presented as statements, rather than being a comment on war (knowing your background -- and also being in correspondence with an Afghan, quite apart from my Tibetan friends). The other was the dubious value of hindsight.
For once, I agree with the 'nerd' argument that this is a photo forum, and that dragging in politics is more than a little tangential and unnecessary.
When I find his address, and get his permission, I'll send you (privately) the address of the author of the Lens Collector's Vademecum. You have a copy, I take it?
Cheers,
R.
When I find his address, and get his permission, I'll send you (privately) the address of the author of the Lens Collector's Vademecum. You have a copy, I take it?
Cheers,
R.
Hello Roger,
No, I don't have a copy of the book.
Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
hunghang
08-28-2008, 14:39
Raid,
Sell this camera.
All you have to do is find the best international auction house that deals in rare historical items related to WW-II.
Put the $$$ in a college fund for your lovely daughters.
willie
My wife tells me to sell my camera... even if they weren't of any historical value.
Raid that is an amazing camera. What a beast! Have you used it? If so, What for? Post some pics, man!
RE: The historical value - it seems to me that a museum would want to curate first the photos, and then at least two of the cameras. Do any others survive? Have you contacted the museum at Los Alamos?
Or perhaps the National Atomic Museum, in Albuquerque, would be interested.
~Joe
Fred,
I am uncomfortable seeing accusations that the camera was not used in the war and the inventor's imagination had gone wild.
I do not know what the whole truth is here, but I am confident that Douglas Winnek was a well established inventor in the field of optical design. I don't see any signs that his daughter is dreaming up things, as she refers to her father's diary.
Instead of providing evidence of the contrary, I am seeing claims being made that we are being given untruths.
This makes me feel uncomfortable. If you have true evidence of any sort, please share it with us here. Nobody here will be hurt if the truth comes out.
Fred,
I am uncomfortable seeing accusations that the camera was not used in the war and the inventor's imagination had gone wild.
I do not know what the whole truth is here, but I am confident that Douglas Winnek was a well established inventor in the field of optical design. I don't see any signs that his daughter is dreaming up things, as she refers to her father's diary.
Instead of providing evidence of the contrary, I am seeing claims being made that we are being given untruths.
This makes me feel uncomfortable. If you have true evidence of any sort, please share it with us here. Nobody here will be hurt if the truth comes out.
I would agree with you here, Raid.
A contemporaneous diary of the builder should be sufficient to establish provenance for most people, I would say. I am sure weaker evidence has been accepted.
Perhaps you could get a copy of pertinent pages of the diary and provide that along with the daughter's letter to the museum, it would be a nice adjunct to the camera for display.
Very nice work tracking this down...
gdi: I have just sent an email to the inventor's daughter, conveying to her some of the suspicions posted here. I will ask her for a few related pages of her dad's diary if she responds to my email.
LeicaTom
08-28-2008, 18:06
Raid,
Great Historical Camera that was involved in one of the MOST IMPORTANT bombing missions of WW2
I think to find out more details contact some people at these websites
http://www.enolagay509th.com/default.htm
http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/509.html
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/photo_galleries/509_composite_group_history/History_Of_The_509th_Composite_Group.htm
Perhaps someone there can shed more light on the subject of what was, loaded/used and shot with in which planes etc.
I have a personal friend (model) who`s uncle Captain George Marquardt was the commander of "Necessary Evil" which was the photo chase and scientific observer aircraft for the Hiroshima mission - sadly he`s since past on quite a few years now
Tom
PS: Here`s a page with infomation on the "Bocks Car"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocks_Car
and the photo chase plane for the second mission was "Big Stink"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stink
bean_counter
08-28-2008, 18:27
Great item, Raid. THANK YOU for sharing.
Really, you should work with the daughter in any donation/sale to a museum. Original, contemporary, 1st person documentation is HIGHLY desirable with such historical items.
Once I hear back from Kelly, I will let you know what she has to say about it.
I hope that I have not made her upset with my questions.
Thanks for all the tips.
So what do these knobs do?
Fred,
Thank you for your clarification on your opinions stated here.
The knobs seem to hold the lens in place. I have never used the camera, so I am guessing.
edited: the knobs are to open the camera lid to insert a lens.
Absolutely incredible camera, of unquestionable historic significance if all of your sources are correct (and I have no reason to assume otherwise). A few ides for you:
Firstly, if you are interested in giving it to a museum, perhaps you could contact a few you think may be interested ( I was also going to suggest the Smithsonian), present them with all of your findings so far (you have kept detailed records, of course) and let them know that you may be interested in giving it to them. I would imagine that, if they had any interest in an object such as this, they would attempt to verify the origins and use of this camera for themselves. That would certainly help to determine exactly what you have.
My second suggestion is also regarding a PBS show, but a little more in depth than Antiques Roadshow. There is a show entitled History Detectives, where people who have what they believe to be rare, historical objects contact the show. The people from the show then do whatever research is necessary to validate this - they will travel to various museums, contact authorities in the suject, etc. in order to determine the tru nature of the given object. It seems to me that what you have here would make an absolutely fascinating epsiode, at the very least, and it is one way that you may be able to learn more about the camera than you could on your own.
Here is a link to the shows website: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/
And here is a link directly to their submission form: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/about/submit.html
Please let us know if you make it on the show!
What would be very interesting historically would be the cameras that were used to provide the photographs to Truman and Oppenheimers teams between the 1st and 2nd bombs. (I highly recommend you read "Hiroshima in America" if you haven't already).
A lot of info. has just come out in the last 20-25 years, and movie footage that was taken by US and Japanese officials in the mid to late '40s has just been made widely available, much of it 35mm and not available for a min. of 3 decades.
Whatever your camera was used for, it sounds very interesting, and I hope it brings you the happiness you are looking for with it.
Is the camera radioactive?
Here is my receipt:
Thank You!
History Detectives has received your message
Your mystery will be reviewed by experts, and considered as a possible investigation for future episodes of History Detectives.
Our stories all begin with suggestions from people like you, so we put a high value on your contribution. But please understand that the volume of e-mail sent to History Detectives makes it impossible to send individual replies.
What would be very interesting historically would be the cameras that were used to provide the photographs to Truman and Oppenheimers teams between the 1st and 2nd bombs. (I highly recommend you read "Hiroshima in America" if you haven't already).
A lot of info. has just come out in the last 20-25 years, and movie footage that was taken by US and Japanese officials in the mid to late '40s has just been made widely available, much of it 35mm and not available for a min. of 3 decades.
Whatever your camera was used for, it sounds very interesting, and I hope it brings you the happiness you are looking for with it.
Is the camera radioactive?
Thanks.
Old lenses sometimes had Thorium in them. I used a Geiger counter to measure low levels of radioactive material. The levels did not look dangerous. I consulted experts in the field.
Absolutely incredible camera, of unquestionable historic significance if all of your sources are correct (and I have no reason to assume otherwise). A few ides for you:
Firstly, if you are interested in giving it to a museum, perhaps you could contact a few you think may be interested ( I was also going to suggest the Smithsonian), present them with all of your findings so far (you have kept detailed records, of course) and let them know that you may be interested in giving it to them. I would imagine that, if they had any interest in an object such as this, they would attempt to verify the origins and use of this camera for themselves. That would certainly help to determine exactly what you have.
My second suggestion is also regarding a PBS show, but a little more in depth than Antiques Roadshow. There is a show entitled History Detectives, where people who have what they believe to be rare, historical objects contact the show. The people from the show then do whatever research is necessary to validate this - they will travel to various museums, contact authorities in the suject, etc. in order to determine the tru nature of the given object. It seems to me that what you have here would make an absolutely fascinating epsiode, at the very least, and it is one way that you may be able to learn more about the camera than you could on your own.
Here is a link to the shows website: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/
And here is a link directly to their submission form: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/about/submit.html
Please let us know if you make it on the show!
The Associate Producer already contacted me more than once this morning, and she will start the investigation about this camera. I emailed her photos of the camera, and I even gave her this link here to give RFF additional exposure. Maybe we will learn more about the whole issue. They will contact Winnek's daughter too.
The Associate Producer already contacted me more than once this morning, and she will start the investigation about this camera. I emailed her photos of the camera, and I even gave her this link here to give RFF additional exposure. Maybe we will learn more about the whole issue. They will contact Winnek's daughter too.
Well that is awesome! I have seen the show and they do an impressive job.
LeicaTom
08-29-2008, 10:21
The Associate Producer already contacted me more than once this morning, and she will start the investigation about this camera. I emailed her photos of the camera, and I even gave her this link here to give RFF additional exposure. Maybe we will learn more about the whole issue. They will contact Winnek's daughter too.
WOW!
That rocks Raid, really great news, I wish one of my Leica`s was famous enough to do a TV show on :)
Good Luck with Everything
Tom
If they accept it, they will have more access to the National Archives than the average bear, and will probably find out exactly what the origin is.
After 3 hours I pretty much gave up, everything was a dead end.
By the way I assume those knobs on the side are focus?
You focus with the bellows.
The "knob" is the aperture changing knob. With a huge lens, changing the aperture is no small task. Each lens is housed within a wodden bloack, and the optical block is lowered into the camera after removing the top cover [the knobs on top of the camera].
WOW!
That rocks Raid, really great news, I wish one of my Leica`s was famous enough to do a TV show on :)
Good Luck with Everything
Tom
Tom,
the whole bubble may bust if they find out that the lens is not what it is supposed to be. I hope that Winnek's daughter cooperates with them.
If they accept it, they will have more access to the National Archives than the average bear, and will probably find out exactly what the origin is.
This is my main goal here. I hope that things will work out.
cool --- wear a leica around your neck when they are filming to make everybody here wet their pants when you're on tv
If ... and only if, the "show" materializes, then I will make sure to mention RFF. I may wear a Leica M3 with a Zeiss Sonnar 5cm around my neck.:D
Willie,
You sound like what my wife told me today.
I would agree with her and Willie, Raid. Museums have access to auctions, too ...
Roland.
PS: thanks for the great story of course.
The issue here is to connect the camera that Raid has with the Winnek diary, since it does not look like any of the Douglas Winnek patent drawings.
I guess that it the question I forgot to ask Raid, did the daughter have any photos of Winnek cameras, e.g. how did she determine the camera you have is her father's?
What made Raid first find out it was a Winnek camera?
The term "TRIVISION" got me on the track to Douglas Winnek. After many optics and physics experts had taken a look at the internet photos of the camera, one person finally informed me that I need to consider Douglas Winnek.
Winnek's daughter asked for photos of the camera, and after she received my email with the pics, she wrote me that I had one of her father's 15 cameras.
I would agree with her and Willie, Raid. Museums have access to auctions, too ...
Roland.
PS: thanks for the great story of course.
Roland,
I believe in a free trade system, so if there is a possibility to allow museums to bid on this camera, then I certainly prefer to get some money towards my daughters' ecucation. Each will end up being a winner.
The issue here is to connect the camera that Raid has with the Winnek diary, since it does not look like any of the Douglas Winnek patent drawings.
The patent drawing were for the system and not the specific cameras. Project cameras that were used for a secretive project, such as the Manhattan Project, most likely differed for purpose of achieving specific goals.
Now allow me to steer away from the historical/political aspect and let's talk photography with this monster of a camera.
While driving along Escambia Bay to pick up my daughter from school, I was thinking about the way this camera may have been used to take photos.
I don't see any shutter release or shutter anywhere.
I don't see any shutter speed settings.
There is a knob for changing apertures, though.
I think that this camera may have been used this way:
There was a motorized film advance mechanism attached to it when used on an airplane. The film speed was fixed to one speed and the focus always set to infinity.
The fast lens speed allowed flexibility in setting many aperture values with one fixed shutter speed. Maybe the film advance regulated that one fixed shutter speed.
Since the lens was always set to infinity, the different aperture setting were useless for DOF settings. It had to be to balance different exposure situations by changing thre aperture.
This is my initial guess. I could very well be wrong here.
Who has other suggestions on how the camera may have worked?
Thanks Raid, I was about to rewrite my question (I deleted it since it seemed argumentative), but you got the drift of it.
It would be great if she would send you photos. That is actually all that is needed to truly authenticate it.
I will hear back from PBS about Winnek's daughter. Maybe she will tell them more than what she had revealed to me so far.
Trivision does not stand for a TV camera. As for APEL, I think that it has little to do with a library.
I had all this information posted in my initial thread on the camera. In this thread, I was not asking for input on finding out which camera it was; just the opposite. I was informing you what Winnek's daughter has written me.
TRIVISION Camera at the Navy was not a TV camera, Fred.
Time/CNN have this on trivision camera:
date:Monday, Jan. 13, 1947
In the plushier Victorian parlors, the stereoscope had been a favorite gadget. Viewed through its wooden lorgnette-style holder, special, double photographs looked solidly three-dimensional, and entertained the young & old on dull Sunday afternoons. Last week the Navy announced that it was perfecting an improvement: a single photograph which appears three-dimensional without benefit of "viewer."
Objects looked at directly seem three-dimensional because each of the two human eyes sees a slightly different picture. The stereoscope, with its two pictures taken from different angles, copies this principle.
Six years ago the Navy picked up an idea which Inventor Douglas F. Winnek had been working on since 1932. Winnek uses a camera with a lens wider than the distance between the human eyes, and takes his pictures on a special film covered with tiny, transparent ridges. These act somewhat like lenses.
Light which reaches them through one edge of the camera lens makes a dot-&-dash picture on the sensitive emulsion behind the ridges. Light passing through the opposite edge of the lens makes a slightly different picture. When the negative is looked at with both human eyes, it seems to be three-dimensional. Each eye, being in a slightly different position in relation to the lenslike ridges, sees a different picture. The two pictures, combining, give the appearance of depth.
The "trivision" negatives (as the Navy calls them) are reversed, the foreground appearing to be the background. But printed on special "trivision paper" they are startlingly lifelike. The process is not yet ready for demonstration. But Inventor Winnek and the Navy hope to adapt it to colored lithography and to movies, so that human beings on paper or screen will be almost warm with life.
cosmonot
08-29-2008, 13:57
The Aeronautical Instruments Laboratory (AIL), and the Aeronautical Photographic Experimental Laboratory (APEL), were transferred to Johnsville in December 1953 from the Naval Air Material Center, Philadelphia. The Instruments Laboratory functions in research, development and test areas of aircraft, flight and engine instruments, automatic control and navigational equipments to provide the latest and best means of meeting varied combat or defense conditions. Current projects include development and test of helicopter automatic controls, of pilots dead reckoning position indicator and experimental instrument panels for jet aircraft. The Photographic Laboratory conducts research in the development of aerial and airborne photographic equipments and auxiliary components. A recent project involved miniaturization of optics used in photographic systems for future aircraft ensuring complete dependability and mission accomplishment in photographic reconnaissance.
from: http://www.navairdevcen.org/nadchistory1.html
from: http://www.navairdevcen.org/nadchistory1.html
A.P.E.L. does not stand for Allied Publications Electronic Library, Fred.
It stands for Aeronautical Photographic Experimental Laboratory, which is more believable when it is for a camera.
Thank you, cosmonot. This is more believable to stand for APEL on a camera.
This certainly lifts the probability that this was not used for X-ray experiments but for aerial photography.
It seems that we are getting closer to the truth, whatever it may be.
I was already quite exited to have a Douglas Winnek 3D camera, but if it also has added historical value, then this would be even better.
Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the info.
My plea. Do not donate it to the Smithsonian. They have the largest camera collection in the US, and I don't know of a single piece that is on display. The holdings are not cataloged. The equipment is not available for public viewing. The place is a hardware mausoleum, not a museum.
Thanks again Raid for another interesting and wholly informative thread!
As an aside, I checked that link for the PBS show and saw this in my local listings for tomorrow night's show: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/about/tunein.html?display_format=ep_description&title_id=24548&display_feed=17482&display_date=2008-08-31&display_time=23:00&feeds=&station=WUNC&zipcode=28677&transport=&provider=&channelsuppress=f
I doubt very seriously they would be running with your question this quickly, but I'll be sure to watch tomorrow night to see.
DOH! It's sunday night and it's on their HD channel instead. I reckon I'll do my usual NON-tv watching instead Sunday night.
cosmonot
08-29-2008, 14:16
Thank you, cosmonot. This is more believable to stand for APEL on a camera.
This certainly lifts the probability that this was not used for X-ray experiments but for aerial photography.
It depends. APEL could have been using such cameras for inspection of parts removed from flight test service, recording instruments during a test, wind tunnel research, or any number of purposes. I would not discount any of those possibilities until I learned more about what APEL was doing in Philadelphia.
The only certainty is that article is from an unknown author, and the APEL acronym has been reassigned to a different organization within today's Navy.
It depends. APEL could have been using such cameras for inspection of parts removed from flight test service, recording instruments during a test, wind tunnel research, or any number of purposes. I would not discount any of those possibilities until I learned more about what APEL was doing in Philadelphia.
The only certainty is that article is from an unknown author, and the APEL acronym has been reassigned to a different organization within today's Navy.
This is quite a possibility. I will focus on APEL for a while.
'
TYPO... obviously. corrected.
APLE stands for something in the US government, the question mark implied a guess.
Now almost everything on the label is identified (thanks to "cosmonot"). The plate is absolute confirmation of the origin of the camera.
Why is everyone on the RFF so angry? OK kids ... I am done, anger makes me lose interest.
Fred,
I do not see a single "angry" RFF's comment here, except those talking about the ethical/non-ethical aspects of dropping the A-bombs.
Your questioning is very useful to help us find the truth.
photomoof
08-29-2008, 14:44
Raid the camera says exactly what it is, where it was made, and by whom. The daughter obviously has additional documents, and Naval historians like William F. Trimble, History Dept., at Auburn University, can fill in the rest for you. The camera or its brothers were obviously involved, it is only for the daughter to confirm it by providing documents to PBS, if she is not writing a book herself.
The Naval Air Experimental Station reported to the Bureau of Aeronautics, which had been established in 1921 to pursue naval air interests. The NAES was disestablished in 1957 and merged with the NAMC. The Bureau of Aeronautics was merged with the Bureau of Ordnance in 1959 to form the Bureau of Naval Weapons. Finally in 1966 Naval Air Systems Command was initiated. In 1963 the Naval Air Material Center underwent a name change to the Naval Air Engineering Center, and starting in 1967 the move began to the NADC, Warminster in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Good luck with the PBS show! And yes I do find much of the RFF too shrill, or too sentimental.
What a find. I've been fascinated by the atomic-related hardware of that period for years, ever since I read Leslie Groves' book in 1968. To have a piece of photographic hardware that was directly involved in the Project is wonderful and I congratulate you on it.
I agree with Zeitz - not to dismiss the Smithsonian out of hand, but it battles against lack of resources and simply has too much stuff to show it all - it's the same this side of the pond. Many of the large museums keep at least 90% of their collections in storage, and sometimes very bad storage, with the resullt that many irreplaceable items are permanently damaged.
I would look seriously at placing /selling the camera with a specialised museum that will have the space and resources to show it off on permanent display.
Once again - great find and I hope you find a suitable place for it.
I received today an email from the Director of the 3D Center of Art & Photography, located in Portland, OR. He offered to have the Center house the camera.
He added that they are the only museum and gallery devoted to 3D in the US. In addition to a permanent collection of equipment, images, and stereoscopic archives, they have rotating print and digital exhibitions of the work of contemporary stereographers.
link: https://argomail.uwf.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://3dcenter.us
chris91387
08-29-2008, 16:36
i wonder if there are airmen still around who might have used these cameras?
raid, have you thought of contacting some veteran's groups to see if there are any ex-photogs still around who may have used these cameras?
- chris
Chris,
By having me live in Pensacola, you would think that such a task would be easy. I have not known that this camera might be important in the past, so this is new to me. I may ask around after the hurricanes pass by.
Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the info.
My plea. Do not donate it to the Smithsonian. They have the largest camera collection in the US, and I don't know of a single piece that is on display. The holdings are not cataloged. The equipment is not available for public viewing. The place is a hardware mausoleum, not a museum.
This is a good point. No need to have the camera put in some storage room for nobody to see.
Here are photos of the 14 inch 2.2 lens. It is housed in a block, as you can see. It is a very heavy lens.
I have taken photos of one of the other two lenses that I have.It is a 14inch 2.2 lens that is housed in a block and that is very heavy. I could barely lift it off the ground.
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=549733
I have another identical lens, plus something that is either an extender or a doubler.
photomoof
08-29-2008, 19:08
My plea. Do not donate it to the Smithsonian. They have the largest camera collection in the US, and I don't know of a single piece that is on display. The holdings are not cataloged. The equipment is not available for public viewing. The place is a hardware mausoleum, not a museum.
The museum does display pieces, and everything is cataloged for scientific and acedemic study. You are correct, all museums have far more than they could ever hope to display, even though there are currently 19 museums in the system (and a zoo).
I just looked it up, and the Smithsonian has 13 million photographic images, there just would not be enough wall space anywhere. That is why there are curators.
The facility in DC is reopening on November 21, 2008. Assuming Raid's piece is important (e.g. photos shown to Truman were taken with it) then that is where it belongs.
There are really no large photo equipment museums, as such, outside of Japan (http://www.jcii-cameramuseum.jp/top_e.html), and Rochester (George Eastman House International Museum of Photography).
Other museums that show cameras in small numbers:
http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.2514437/k.D40/Photography_Museums.htm
SI provides an online catalog for researchers to begin, before applying for access. http://www.sil.si.edu/research/
photomoof
08-29-2008, 19:35
Look familiar? This is your camera, right down to the side knobs and wooden interior.
So we know that it is a genuine Winnek invention. That is good. Thanks.
How did you find it?
Fred,
If the patent claim was filed in 1947, is there a chance that the camera was used by before that timein WWII?
photomoof
08-29-2008, 20:19
Fred,
If the patent claim was filed in 1947, is there a chance that the camera was used by before that timein WWII?
It is a civilian patent, you have the plate on the side of the camera, it is hard to say, but frankly without seeing the diary it would be impossible to know. Patents are based on diaries and journals, and do not represent the day the idea came into the inventor's brain.
I am not going to speculate again about the diary, it just seemed to work everyone's anger toward me up, when I questioned anything.
I just look at documents, it is all we have when someone has passed away, and cannot be interviewed directly, about events that happened 63 years ago.
I am aware of mathematical proofs in quality control that the allies kept unpublished until the late 1940's.
I guess, we have to somehow get access to the diary somehow.
I finally wrote Winnek's daughter an email, asking her to let me call her about the camera. I hope that she will respond positively.
Very interesting piece of history even if it is connected with one of the biggest mistakes ever. Imagine that call...."kokura is covered in fog, we can see anything." other side of the line replies "ok whats the next city on the list?" not a good day.
No! the biggest mistake was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If Japan would of stayed home, then the bomb never would have been dropped, & Raid wouldn't have his camera, & we wouldn't be reading this thread.
cosmonot
08-29-2008, 21:30
Here is a link to the full patent, some interesting reading.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=7lNQAAAAEBAJ
photomoof
08-29-2008, 21:46
Here is a link to the full patent, some interesting reading.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=7lNQAAAAEBAJ
That is the same design, but of course a later patent -- 1951. All of them are available, from the 40's on. All patents are public record, and now very easy to find, since they are all online.
cosmonot
08-29-2008, 22:26
Looks to me like the only Winnek patent for a camera of this particular design. A filing date of 1947 and an issue date in the 50's would make sense for hardware developed during the war.
His earlier patents seem to pertain to his stereographic process and method for embossing acetate films.
cosmonot
08-29-2008, 22:37
A contemporaneous source detailing Mr. Winnek's Trivision:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/issue_pdf/backmatter_pdf/95/2471.pdf
SCIENCE, 1942:
TRIVISION
A REVOLUTIONARY advance in x-ray- photography was
announced by its inventor, Douglas F. Winnek, of Mount
Vernon, N. Y., at the meeting of the New York State
Medical Society.
Trivision is the name Mr. Winnek gives to his new
technic for better x-ray pictures. By means of a special
film, a single x-ray picture can be made to show length,
breadth and depth-in other words, three dimensions.
With the aid of a grid superimposed or printed on the
emulsion plate of the film, measurements of these dimen-
sions can be made from the same single picture.
A single trivision picture, for example, would show the
surgeon whether a bullet or shell fragment was behind,
in front of or to the side of a bone or other internal body
structure. With the grid he could also measure accurately
the distance of the bullet from the bone or other tissue.
In case of broken bones, Trivision would similarly give
swift, accurate information on the amount of displace-
ment of the broken ends of the bone. To get this infor-
mation at present, Mr. Winnek pointed out, surgeons must
have stereoscopic pairs of x-ray pictures taken, must look
at them in complex viewing devices and use tedious
measuring technics.
Motion can also be reproduced on the Trivision film.
Such actions as the winking of an eye, the rotation of a
clenched fist and the meshing of gears have been recorded
and the motion studied in three dimensions.
Trivision pictures, which can be made in color as well
as black and white, are taken with a scanning camera on
ordinary photographic film embossed on the base side
with microscopically small lens ridges or lentieulations.
Truman was shown aerial photos of the devastation 2 days after Hiroshima, and Oppenheimer's Los Alamos team only saw aerial photos of Hiroshima after the Nagasaki mission.
The Hiroshima aerial images were most likely taken by Caron's (gunner received K17 camera from photographer who did not make it on plane) smaller K17 whose negatives did come out, as the plane's mounted K20's aerial camera's film did not yield any usable photos because of the maneuvering of the plane. Caron received credit in a photo book for having taken one of the 50 or so timeliest photos.
One of the scientists in the Great Artiste (instrument/yield plane) also had a Fastax that may have taken some usable photos.
On the bockscar Nagasaki mission, the photo (observation) plane (the big stink) there were several photo op issues - the trained photographer on the high speed camera (Serber) was kicked off at the last minute for not having a parachute, and radio silence was broken as he gave instructions by radio to someone on the plane to try to operate it.
It's unlikely that Ashworth did any photographing on the bockscar mission, given all the drama with low gas, no show of the big stink observation plane at the Yakushima rendezvous point (though it reportedly got there later), weather issues, and decisions going on during that the crew members were still arguing about publicly as recently as 2000 (many have since passed away, but get togethers were regular for awhile with the crews of both missions, as well as some BBC sponsored and private trips back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by crew members.
During one of the missions, a photographer operator missed a 6 second window of operating a camera, and broke rules and used his own camera. I don't know if his photos ever came out, unless it was the British scientist with the Fastax.
Since Ashworth was on the project since February, and was responsible for finding locations in the Pacific, and 155 practice drops had taken place in UT, NM, and the Pacific, if he did use one of these 3D or experimental x-ray cameras, and he met with and/or showed images from this camera to Truman, it would be interesting historically to know when these meetings took place, and what the images showed.
It would be most interesting if a historian could examine the diary dates and reconcile them with Truman's schedule and see where they could fit on a timeline.
Yes I see that, she is referring to a preflight by the Enola Gay:
The same camera was used on a preflight over Hiroshima on the Enola Gay several days before the actual bombing of that city. It was not, however, on that particular mission. Camera X was on that mission.All pretty confusing, historically, since the Enola Gay is widely reported not to have flown over Hiroshima prior to the bombing, however her father may have thought it did, or maybe secretly it did?
Anyway, there must be photos of this camera somewhere. I have not found any myself, and doubt it would be easy without a visit to the national archives. She did not provide you with any photos?
Edit:
From the design and later papers he delivered my guess is that this is a lab camera, it just does not seem like any aerials I have ever seen. (I have only owned Japanese aerial cameras)
This appears to be the only photo on the web besides yours
http://www.lenstar.org/history/images/ch3_img5.gif
oftheherd
08-30-2008, 03:17
This thread made me realize RFF did not have a photographic history forum.
That is no longer the case.
Stephen
Very nice move sir. Thanks!
I took Fred's advice, and last night I sent an email to the Naval historian, William Timble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Raid the camera says exactly what it is, where it was made, and by whom. The daughter obviously has additional documents, and Naval historians like William F. Trimble, History Dept., at Auburn University, can fill in the rest for you. The camera or its brothers were obviously involved, it is only for the daughter to confirm it by providing documents to PBS, if she is not writing a book herself."
Since Ashworth was on the project since February, and was responsible for finding locations in the Pacific, and 155 practice drops had taken place in UT, NM, and the Pacific, if he did use one of these 3D or experimental x-ray cameras, and he met with and/or showed images from this camera to Truman, it would be interesting historically to know when these meetings took place, and what the images showed.
It would be most interesting if a historian could examine the diary dates and reconcile them with Truman's schedule and see where they could fit on a timeline.
3D images may yield more information about buildings on the ground than 2D images. We keep returning to the diary dates.
If in fact Truman did have 3D Navy photos it would make this a major camera, so I do hope Raid follows this. If I had this information I would contact historians and get help in bringing light on this -- relentlessly. I guess I would not sleep until I knew the truth of it.
I am preparing myself for sleepless nights!
Seriously speaking, I will keep on asking and asking people about the truth regarding theis camera and its possible role in WWII.
As Robert McNamara was quoted in the movie Fog of War, "[Curtis] LeMay
said that, If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."... Which would make this camera an instrument used in a war crime.
photomoof
08-30-2008, 05:40
3D images may yield more information about buildings on the ground than 2D images. We keep returning to the diary dates.
The journal(s) is the key to this puzzle.
I am sure, like any scientist, he kept many journals over the years, since it is clear he was prolific and secured quite a number of personal patents. Patents require accurate journals to show when ideas were conceived, if the patent owner has to litigate the patent against another claim of the same art.
... Which would make this camera an instrument used in a war crime.
So, do we send the camera to jail or have it tortured or hang it?
The rope better be quite thick!
The journal(s) is the key to this puzzle.
I am sure, like any scientist, he kept many journals over the years, since it is clear he was prolific and secured quite a number of personal patents. Patents require accurate journals to show when ideas were conceived, if the patent owner has to litigate the patent against another claim of the same art.
I agree with you here; having several patents suggests that Winnek kept track very well of what he trying to do at the time.
I will try to track down his daughter's phone number to talk with her if she does not call me.
Al Patterson
08-30-2008, 05:48
So, do we send the camera to jail or have it tortured or hang it?
The rope better be quite thick!
No, just put an evidence tag on it...
"Exhibit XI" would work for me. :angel:
So, do we send the camera to jail or have it tortured or hang it?
The rope better be quite thick!
Raid, you have a sinister looking equipment at your hand with a dark history. I suggest you donate it asap and remove its dark presence from your household. :)
But seriously, you might have a better chance with contacting anti-nuclear weapons campaigners and museums or even Japanese embassy to see if they have a use for it.
First I need to know the camera's role in WWII, if it had any at all.
The internet has a purpose to it; I have posted the thread on three sites so that googling for the camera becomes easier for people. I hope that interested parties contact me. A 3D Museum Director contacted me yesterday.
Oh, that must be very old, could you post some pics here using that cam? I'd love to see it.. really.
Nico,
This is an aerial camera that is fixed to infinity focusing. Also, it is so heavy that two peopleor three are needed to put the camera on some cart to move it around "to take snapshots" with it. It also needs a film back.
I would post any photos taken with it if I had any.
Oh... it's not a rangefinder camera?
Oh... it's not a rangefinder camera?
I don't know. How do you categorize large format cameras?
You have ground glass focusing or no focusing. It is not SLR.
As you said, many LF cameras use Ground Glass focusing. Others use a rangefinder - like the Graflex Graphic press cameras. I've never seen a LF camera with "no focusing" except perhaps a pinhole camera. Upon re-read of earlier posts I believe perhaps I didn't see that you said it was a 'fixed focus' camera.
We are still trying to figure out the secrets of this camera.
Maybe the patent application sketches show some details that reveal the camera type.
bean_counter
08-30-2008, 09:35
Another suggestion - consider the Experimental Aircraft Assn (EAA) - the folks that have the massive fly-in every summer in Oshkosh, WI. They have an excellent aviation museum, a big "war birds" group, and I'm pretty sure they have a several members who specialize in air recon history. Pretty sure they have (or had) an air recon display at the museum with a P-51 set up for photo recon.
EAA members are surprisingly like RFF'ers - big interest in obsolescent tech, lots of folks who DIY, lots of collectors, and some folks with BIG money.
would help to authenticate the latter part of the daughter's claims in your first post, which otherwise conflict with the numerous accounts from biographies and historians who've already published intricate and detailed timelines of minute events and equipment used that led up to the 2 missions.
Good luck with your research -time is not on your side, as the veterans who were involved in these events are passing away and aging quickly.
We are still trying to figure out the secrets of this camera.
Maybe the patent application sketches show some details that reveal the camera type.
Douglas Winnek's daughter is very upset at me, and maybe rightfully so.
Her father's legacy is not questionable and she believes that I am after sensationalism by contacting the TV show. I should cancel my request to the PBS producer for investigating my camera.
What a bad start this is.
I have emailed the producer of the pbs show that I am withdrawing my request for an investigation.
cosmonot
08-30-2008, 10:54
Raid, I'm sorry to hear that Winnek's daughter is getting upset. I don't think that anyone is questioning his legacy, it's quite apparent that he invented some very novel tools and techniques.
But...
The more I look at this I don't think it's an aerial camera. Of course I'm not an expert on WWII aerial photography or the Manhattan Project, but I am an engineer that's worked in material testing labs for the US Govt. I've also taken several Univiersity courses on "The Bomb" and read more than a few books about it.
Winnek's TRIVISION concept was an improvement on x-ray photography. NAMC would be doing xray photography of all sorts of materials, things that may have been tested to failure, or welds that needed to be inspected. The lens on your camera clearly shows a magnification of 1:4, which I wouldn't expect for an aerial camera, but would expect on one that lived it's life in a materials lab. The Manhattan project would have most definitely been a customer for cameras like this, but not to put on planes for aerial reconnaisance.
Look for references to "x-ray inspection" in the literature surrounding the Manhattan project. That was a common test for everything from storage/pressure tank welds to mechanisms that were inaccessible after assembly. This is a project where literally no cost was spared and any new technology that could help ensure success was evaluated.
Winnek's patent shows a sheet film holder (referred to as a "common" size) being installed on the rear bellows of the camera. Assume it's 8x10", and that 362mm lens at 10,000 ft would cover ~10 miles along the long axis. The true test would be to use Winnek's own formulas from his patents to determine if the Trivision system would even be applicable to a photo from altitude. What would be the distance between lenticular ridges in the film needed to photograph at 10k, 15k, 20k, 30k feet? Could those ridges be achieved with the acetate film base of the day? Could it resolve important details of a city from that altitude in 3D using Trivison film prepared using standard film emulsions and NOT x-ray film?
Raid - that's too bad about Winnek's daughter. I'm sorry to hear it, and sorry that she has taken this stance.
If as Ted notes, her father's contribution to the events surrounding the bomb program has been left out of the historical record...
...which otherwise conflict with the numerous accounts from biographies and historians who've already published intricate and detailed timelines of minute events and equipment used that led up to the 2 missions...... then one might think she would have some interest highlighting her father's accomplishments.
If she is still open to communication from you, perhaps you could suggest that SHE contact PBS, and offer to make your camera available to her.
John: She takes the stand that people in the area of optics are aware of her father's contributions and that there is no need for any TV show on him.
She again affirmed that I have one of her father's cameras, and she reaffirmed the accuracy of her father's diary and "notes".
cosmonot: I am aware of the 1:4 on the lens and its possible implications. Earlier threads brought up this fact, and that's why I accepted the suggestion that this was an X-ray camera ... until Winnek's daughter somehow suggested otherwise.
She asked me not to contact here again,and she said that she regrets having contacting me in the first place.
I am not in a position to figure out who has the true recollection and who has not. Even if this camera was not used to take photos outside an X-ray lab, it still is a historical camera.
micromontenegro
08-30-2008, 11:13
John: She takes the stand that people in the area of optics are aware of her father's contributions and that there is no need for any TV show on him.
She again affirmed that I have one of her father's cameras, and she reaffirmed the accuracy of her father's diary and "notes".
She asked me not to contact here again,and she said that she regrets having contacting me in the first place.
With all due respect, she does not sound very logical.
cosmonot
08-30-2008, 11:30
cosmonot: I am aware of the 1:4 on the lens and its possible implications. Earlier threads brought up this fact, and that's why I accepted the suggestion that this was an X-ray camera ... until Winnek's daughter somehow suggested otherwise.
I would think that Winnek's own published definition of Trivison would carry some weight as well, considering this camera is labeled as such.
You have stated several times that this camera is large and difficult to handle. What sort of mounting points are on it? Is there anything that would indicate it is appropriately stressed for flight in a WWII bomber? Flight crews surely weren't hanging it out the window as they passed over Japan...
It's manual nature (focus via back bellows, sheet film, manually set shutter and aperture) along with it's descriptive labeling say a lot about what it is. It is exactly the type of camera that one would expect to have in the lab, or in direct support of the equipment surrounding the most technologically advanced weapon of the war.
The major unknown regarding this camera is what "Proj. No. 1071" was, and who ordered it.
To me it seems quite clear that without the journals to prove otherwise, this is exactly what the camera is. A lab instrument of a type that was possibly in the Manhattan Project inventory.
The researchers involved with either of the TV shows or academic institutions previously mentioned would have even less emotional attachment to the investigation than you, I, or Winnek's daughter. It would be interesting to see what they could discover.
With all due respect, she does not sound very logical.
... and she sounds a bit insecure about her statements.
Raid, have you thought of doing a Freedom of Information Act request on your camera? Try giving DOD and DOE the description and serial number, and the term "Proj. No. 1071", and ask that they tell you all they know.
I'm also sorry that she has taken this stance. But I can understand how someone would want their family member's legacy retained for their contributions to the advanced camera technology alone, and not diverted into the politics and personal opinions or ideals her dad may have left in his records that would likely be addressed.
In any case, you still have the option of pursuing the history of your camera and how it may have been used. You could even tell the PBS producers that the daughter of the inventor will not answer any questions for them and they will have to pursue their research without those notes, and that you will only cooperate if they promise to respect her privacy. It still may be interesting enough for them (or someone) to consider further researching.
Raid - that's too bad about Winnek's daughter. I'm sorry to hear it, and sorry that she has taken this stance.
If as Ted notes, her father's contribution to the events surrounding the bomb program has been left out of the historical record...
... then one might think she would have some interest highlighting her father's accomplishments.
If she is still open to communication from you, perhaps you could suggest that SHE contact PBS, and offer to make your camera available to her.
I may have rushed too quickly to ask the PBS producer to forget about my request to investigate the camera. If she emails me back and accepts an investigation without involving Winnek's daughter, then I may go along with that.
It is my camera, after all.
Based on a tip that I have received at nelsonfoto.com, I have contacted the Strobe Alley at MIT to find out whether the late Professor Harold Egerton and inventor of the strobe, was on one of the A-bomb flights over Japan and supervised the photographing of the explosion and/or the first mushroom shot.
I may have the camera that Prof. Egerton used.
CameraQuest
08-30-2008, 13:38
Raid,
As the interest in this thread shows, the story behind your camera is very interesting to a LOT of people, and at the same time a virtually unknown subject.
The TV program would be wonderful. However special care needs to be taken with Mr. Winnek's daughter to bring her on board the project if at all possible. A good program could be made better with her blessing.
Stephen
Raid,
As the interest in this thread shows, the story behind your camera is very interesting to a LOT of people, and at the same time a virtually unknown subject.
The TV program would be wonderful. However special care needs to be taken with Mr. Winnek's daughter to bring her on board the project if at all possible. A good program could be made better with her blessing.
Stephen
Stephen,
I gave it some additional thoughts, and then I emailed the producer with the wish to continue with the investigation.
I also hope for a good show that shows respect to the people involved.
I may have the camera that Prof. Egerton used.
Doc spelled his name with a "d" in it... EDGERTON.
I don't think Edgerton was in the 509th (~1800 personnel) or on any of the 6 or so allied planes that witnessed the explosions from the air, but he might have been involved with his cameras in the fighting in Europe. Here is the only online bio I could find of Howard Edgerton:
http://www.madehow.com/inventorbios/21/Harold-E-Edgerton.html
There was a project called "Project Alberta" in the 509th that was comprised of civilian scientists: http://www.mphpa.org/classic/CG/CG_09D.htm
There were ground crews for the a-bomb flights so you could check those lists too, but they would all likely have been active military.
Since most of the 5-6 planes on the missions are now on display, though were used through the 60s for various things, has anyone you know looked to see where a camera of your size would fit in say the Enola Gay or Bockscar that are on display? Where is unit XI and the other 13 or so units now?
I may have rushed too quickly to ask the PBS producer to forget about my request to investigate the camera. If she emails me back and accepts an investigation without involving Winnek's daughter, then I may go along with that.
It is my camera, after all.
Based on a tip that I have received at nelsonfoto.com, I have contacted the Strobe Alley at MIT to find out whether the late Professor Harold Egerton and inventor of the strobe, was on one of the A-bomb flights over Japan and supervised the photographing of the explosion and/or the first mushroom shot.
I may have the camera that Prof. Egerton used.
Doc spelled his name with a "d" in it... EDGERTON.
Of course, you are right. I took the name from the posting in which his name was suggested to me, and I was thinking ... the first part of his name was edge ...
I don't think Edgerton was in the 509th (~1800 personnel) or on any of the 6 or so allied planes that witnessed the explosions from the air, but he might have been involved with his cameras in the fighting in Europe. Here is the only online bio I could find of Howard Edgerton:
http://www.madehow.com/inventorbios/21/Harold-E-Edgerton.html
There was a project called "Project Alberta" in the 509th that was comprised of civilian scientists: http://www.mphpa.org/classic/CG/CG_09D.htm
There were ground crews for the a-bomb flights so you could check those lists too, but they would all likely have been active military.
Since most of the 5-6 planes on the missions are now on display, though were used through the 60s for various things, has anyone you know looked to see where a camera of your size would fit in say the Enola Gay or Bockscar that are on display? Where is unit XI and the other 13 or so units now?
It seems that there is every few hours a good tip on where to look for information.
The size of the camera raises the valid question whether such a huge and heavy camera was used on an airplane or not.
The other lenses don't have 1:4 on them. Is this another clue ... ?
The camera is an interchangeable lens camera. Unless you are a giant, it is not suitable for street photography.
35mmdelux
08-30-2008, 15:32
IMO, your camera ought to go to a museum, not the local U. The letter in your possession helps establish its provenance. unique find. Best - Paul
photomoof
08-30-2008, 15:51
Raid
I have removed my "guesses." This camera is well documented and pretty easy to research without even leaving the web.
My guess is it would take very little time to research its timeline with the Navy facility.
In just a few hours of careless research, I was able to pinpoint exactly what agencies were involved, and find the entire set of 11 patent drawings, as well as a number of papers delivered by the inventor. A few weeks of organized research should easily clear everything up.
As for the daughter, she is probably wondering what all the public fuss is about.
Probably time to take this private.
Raid
I have removed my "guesses." This camera is well documented and pretty easy to research without even leaving the web.
My guess is it would take very little time to research its timeline with the Navy facility.
In just a few hours of careless research, I was able to pinpoint exactly what agencies were involved, and find the entire set of 11 patent drawings, as well as a number of papers delivered by the inventor. A few weeks of organized research should easily clear everything up.
As for the daughter, she is probably wondering what all the public fuss is about.
Probably time to take this private.
There is no information online how the camera was used.
Maybe it is better to start working with key individuals at Navy and related agencies.
Still, I am very appreciative of all the tips so far.
what you've found here, if you can.
I know the PR machine for these events was huge, probably bigger than if they even worked or not, with the potsdam events, stalin meetings, domestic pressures, etc. on Truman, who didn't even know about the "Project" untail Roosevelt's death.
I know that Ashford (and Lawrence Johnston) had a lot of clout, and that Ashford was a designer of the triggers for both bombs, and even brought on his assistant to ensure enemy radio signals would not interfere with the triggers. I wouldn't be surprised if he bought 15 of every kind of new photographic gadget for potential PR. Ashford also was responsible for the bomb on boxcar, where it would be deployed, whether they would return with it, go to sea with it, or as what happened, be ready to break the rules and drop it by radar instead of visual if necessary (almost).
So what have you found?
Raid
I have removed my "guesses." This camera is well documented and pretty easy to research without even leaving the web.
My guess is it would take very little time to research its timeline with the Navy facility.
In just a few hours of careless research, I was able to pinpoint exactly what agencies were involved, and find the entire set of 11 patent drawings, as well as a number of papers delivered by the inventor. A few weeks of organized research should easily clear everything up.
As for the daughter, she is probably wondering what all the public fuss is about.
Probably time to take this private.
Raid, I am sorry that my idea that you turn to History Detectives caused a rift between yourself and Mz. Winnek. To be honest, though, I don't think she has any reason to be upset. I would think she would welcome any interest in her father's work, and would be excited to have one of his cameras featured on a television show. If she truly believes that what she told you is correct, then what harm would having it featured on a TV show do? At any rate, if she has already broken off contact with you, there is certainly no reason to call off the TV guys. She's already made up her mind, and you won't get any more information out of her, so you might as well turn to people who make a living doing exactly what you are in need of.
what you've found here, if you can.
I know the PR machine for these events was huge, probably bigger than if they even worked or not, with the potsdam events, stalin meetings, domestic pressures, etc. on Truman, who didn't even know about the "Project" untail Roosevelt's death.
I know that Ashford (and Lawrence Johnston) had a lot of clout, and that Ashford was a designer of the triggers for both bombs, and even brought on his assistant to ensure enemy radio signals would not interfere with the triggers. I wouldn't be surprised if he bought 15 of every kind of new photographic gadget for potential PR. Ashford also was responsible for the bomb on boxcar, where it would be deployed, whether they would return with it, go to sea with it, or as what happened, be ready to break the rules and drop it by radar instead of visual if necessary (almost).
So what have you found?
I was going to pm Fred a similar request.
I started to google for the camera information, and I encountered weird stuff for the Phildelphia Naval Base. A disappearing fog that made military personnel vanish with their submarines; a time machine; UFO stuff ... etc.
Raid, I am sorry that my idea that you turn to History Detectives caused a rift between yourself and Mz. Winnek. To be honest, though, I don't think she has any reason to be upset. I would think she would welcome any interest in her father's work, and would be excited to have one of his cameras featured on a television show. If she truly believes that what she told you is correct, then what harm would having it featured on a TV show do? At any rate, if she has already broken off contact with you, there is certainly no reason to call off the TV guys. She's already made up her mind, and you won't get any more information out of her, so you might as well turn to people who make a living doing exactly what you are in need of.
Walter,
I cannot understand the woman's very strong negative response to my request that she give me more information.
I await from the associate producer of the PBS show an email in which she hopefully will express her willingness to do an investigation even without Winnek's daughter.
Assuming they deem it worthy to do a full investigation, I would imagine that they would be able to proceed with or without Mz. Winnek. After all, it is their job to dig deep and determine the true nature of a given object, and if they happen to hit a dead end they will look somewhere else. Perhaps they could even smooth things over with Mz. Winnek, who knows, in their attempts to get information from all sorts of sources, they must be good at dealing with people.
p.s. My name is Chris, not Walter. Walter is the guy to whom I'm attributing the quote.
Hi Chris [and NOT Walker!]. I nearly did the same mistake a while ago, but then I figured it out.
Yes, if they believe that there is enough meat in the topic, they may go ahead anyways.
photomoof
08-30-2008, 19:26
what you've found here, if you can.
So what have you found?
Anyone at a university can get access to Lexus-Nexus, the national archives, etc, plus access to many university libraries, where additional documents may reside.
Here is a list of research papers on the subject, for a start:
http://www.integralresource.org/integral_research.html
This is not a trivial undertaking, research-wise.
Raid I see you have shortened the original note, to only mention who had control over the project.
oftheherd
08-31-2008, 03:28
what you've found here, if you can.
I know the PR machine for these events was huge, probably bigger than if they even worked or not, with the potsdam events, stalin meetings, domestic pressures, etc. on Truman, who didn't even know about the "Project" untail Roosevelt's death.
I know that Ashford (and Lawrence Johnston) had a lot of clout, and that Ashford was a designer of the triggers for both bombs, and even brought on his assistant to ensure enemy radio signals would not interfere with the triggers. I wouldn't be surprised if he bought 15 of every kind of new photographic gadget for potential PR. Ashford also was responsible for the bomb on boxcar, where it would be deployed, whether they would return with it, go to sea with it, or as what happened, be ready to break the rules and drop it by radar instead of visual if necessary (almost).
So what have you found?
Which may account for Ms Winnek's reluctance be further involved.
Even today there is great competition between scientists for funding for research. They have ideas they believe in and aren't independently wealthy. They seldom have sponsors who stick with them. Therefore they have to seek government help. That occurs in universities and private companies.
That was true during and after the war. There was a lot of money, but also a lot of ideas. There may have been some unfriendly competition between her father others that left him and her bitter.
Good luck with this Raid. Finding history about things like this if rewarding for the most part in the long run. But there can be bumps along the road. You have to be careful and clever with dealings with some people.
I never thought about the competition for government monies, but this is a very good point indeed. We see it a lot these days, and it may existed also then.
Winnek's daughter sounded bitter about her father's true contributions.
photomoof
08-31-2008, 14:03
I never thought about the competition for government monies, but this is a very good point indeed. We see it a lot these days, and it may existed also then.
Winnek's daughter sounded bitter about her father's true contributions.
I am sure from reading the patents, and who they were assigned to that like many inventors, the promise was much greater than the reward.
Inventors are like artists, others often reap the rewards, after their lifetime.
Inventors are like artists, others often reap the rewards, after their lifetime.
... and that's why [maybe] a pbs show is useful here.
photomoof
08-31-2008, 14:54
... and that's why [maybe] a pbs show is useful here.
Probably as much as I love PBS, they will not be able to rewrite his contracts.:rolleyes:
So are you saying that the "facts" have been altererd in the past, and no existing documents could ever change this situation?
Did his contracts dictate to him that his role stayed in the background?
photomoof
08-31-2008, 16:01
So are you saying that the "facts" have been altererd in the past, and no existing documents could ever change this situation?
Did his contracts dictate to him that his role stayed in the background?
No I am saying that no amount of publicity will change the contracts he made with the folks he worked for, or change what his heirs inherited.
I suppose there is the possibility that his camera was used in secret?
I have a feeling that his cameras were checked out once in a while from some lab, and they were used in some military missions somewhere and somehow. His diary and notes may have recorded whenever a camera was checked out. How else would his daughter read about my camera being used on certain days and misisions but not on others?
I wonder how his relatives would feel if Winnek was actively/indirectly involved in the Manhattan Project. Obviously, he was a prominent scientist and inventor with patents to prove his work.
oftheherd
08-31-2008, 17:29
I have a feeling that his cameras were checked out once in a while from some lab, and they were used in some military missions somewhere and somehow. His diary and notes may have recorded whenever a camera was checked out. How else would his daughter read about my camera being used on certain days and misisions but not on others?
I wonder how his relatives would feel if Winnek was actively/indirectly involved in the Manhattan Project. Obviously, he was a prominent scientist and inventor with patents to prove his work.
Two very good points Raid. I can agree from my time in the US Army that there are some people who think outside the box and will try to find uses that aren't first intended. They will use existing items in new ways, just to see if it will work.
There may be some of his daughter's relatives who have given her grief over thoughts of his possible involvement in the "bomb." Or jealous fellow/competing scientists.
photomoof
09-01-2008, 05:29
Two very good points Raid. I can agree from my time in the US Army that there are some people who think outside the box and will try to find uses that aren't first intended. They will use existing items in new ways, just to see if it will work.
There may be some of his daughter's relatives who have given her grief over thoughts of his possible involvement in the "bomb." Or jealous fellow/competing scientists.
More likely she may have believed that RAID was about to bring grief to her, about her father. Obviously he was no more involved than a company that manufactured pencils used by the mathematicians at Los Alamos.
Fred,
How would I bring grief to her? I just want to know the history of the camera, even without her diaries.
How would I bring grief to her? I just want to know the history of the camera, even without her diaries.
I wouldn't take Fred too literally! People are funny sometimes about family matters. It might not be about how YOU might bring grief... but more that she answered your questions and wants to be done with the matter. For whatever reason. I was very involved in genealogy at one time and was asking aroung the family elders for information, stories, etc. In one line of cousins I had one person, and probably only him, that could answer a few questions. His response to my enquiry: "they are all dead, what more do you need to know?" Maybe he has deeper reasons than he spoke but, most of all, he simply was not sharing my interest and didn't want to participate. It might not be y-o-u, it might be h-e-r.
p.s. Have you thought about asking the government through a FOIA request?
Gumby,
The strange thing is that I did not ask her any questions; she volunteered the information about the role of the camera in the war.
I have emailed DOD ("what is Project 1071?")
cosmonot
09-01-2008, 14:36
I think an inquiry to the Naval Historical Center might turn up something. Try to find out where the records from the Philadelphia labs are, or if they still exist.
http://www.history.navy.mil/
The project number could have been assigned by the machine shop that fabricated the cameras. In that case you'd probably need references directly from APEL's daily operations.
The Navy probably won't do the research for you, but they should be able to tell you what resources are available.
you might just get knocks on the door for that one -- there may be a current "project 1071" and that might open up the eyes of suspicious types ---- careful asking around dod
I started my inquiry with the WWII camera, so the project number relates to that camera and from that time.
I've been following this thread with interest and an Idea just crossed my mind, sorry if this idea turns to be silly. Apparently, the lens was manufactured by Kodak, I am sure their archive still have some information on the lens which might lead to something about the camera itself. Could be worth a try to start an inquiry there.
Cheers,
Carlo
I've been following this thread with interest and an Idea just crossed my mind, sorry if this idea turns to be silly. Apparently, the lens was manufactured by Kodak, I am sure their archive still have some information on the lens which might lead to something about the camera itself. Could be worth a try to start an inquiry there.
Cheers,
Carlo
Hi Carlo,
The lenses are not numbered in any way. They may have been special ordered for the project. I once contacted the Rochester Eastman museum, but they had no records on the lenses [without the serial numbers].
There is a possibility that this camera was used for more than one project, and the usage is the area of uncertainty.
I think an inquiry to the Naval Historical Center might turn up something. Try to find out where the records from the Philadelphia labs are, or if they still exist.
http://www.history.navy.mil/
The project number could have been assigned by the machine shop that fabricated the cameras. In that case you'd probably need references directly from APEL's daily operations.
The Navy probably won't do the research for you, but they should be able to tell you what resources are available.
I know a Professor in my university who specializes in US military history. Maybe he can give me hints on what to do next.
you might just get knocks on the door for that one -- there may be a current "project 1071" and that might open up the eyes of suspicious types ---- careful asking around dod
I think you may have seen one too many movies. :rolleyes:
I will procede carefully, as the investigation may touch many peoples' lives.
photomoof
09-01-2008, 20:55
Fred,
How would I bring grief to her? I just want to know the history of the camera, even without her diaries.
She may have simply had second thoughts about associating her father with the A-bomb, she said she regretted the email. I do not think the A-bomb project was important to his career, and she probably felt she had misspoken.
Only a guess... can't read her thoughts.
She may have simply had second thoughts about associating her father with the A-bomb, she said she regretted the email. I do not think the A-bomb project was important to his career, and she probably felt she had misspoken.
Only a guess... can't read her thoughts.
I also explain her behavior this way.
Douglas Winnek was a pioneer of 3D lens design and he does not need any extra fame.
oftheherd
09-02-2008, 08:40
I think you may have seen one too many movies. :rolleyes:
Well, I think you are trying to cover up something. I googled it and found this reference on the first page!
A camera that was used in the Manhattan Project (Atmic Bomb Drop ...you might just get knocks on the door for that one -- there may be a current "project 1071" and that might open up the eyes of suspicious types ---- careful ...
www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=886030 - 16 hours ago -
:D :D :D :D :D
The associate producer of PBS contacted me this morning, and she l
left me a message that they could work around Winnek's family to do the investigation. They have not contected her so far.
chris91387
09-02-2008, 09:50
perhaps winnek's daughter is hiding something or knows more than she is revealing.
maybe there's a lot more to this story still to be discovered.
- chris
Chris,
I don't know. Maybe there is nothing to hide. This is also a possibility.
"Douglas Winnek also was quite prolific in patented camera designs, imaging techniques and lens manufacturing methods (figure 16 through 18). Called "Trivision", his inventions were widely publicized including his approach to auto stereoscopic X-ray photography."
Interesting, but SCIENCE NEWS actually spell like that or did something get translated funny?
- techic
- lentieulations
What was the date??
Vannevar Bush has a box with materials on Douglas Winnek.
Collection Summary
Title: Papers of Vannevar Bush
Span Dates: 1901-1974
Bulk Dates: (bulk 1932-1955)
ID No.: MSS14498
Creator: Bush, Vannevar, 1890-1974
Extent: 55,000 items; 174 containers; 69.6 linear feet
Language: Collection material in English
Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Abstract: Physicist, engineer, government official, and science administrator. The collection relates primarily to Vannevar
Bush's role as coordinator of the scientific community for defense efforts during and after World War II when he served as
chairman of the National Defense Research Committee and director of its successor, the Office of Scientific Research and
Development, where he supervised the Manhattan Project and other programs.
Well, I think you are trying to cover up something.
:D :D :D :D :D
Well, you may be on to something... but I'm not at liberty to say any more... except that Mr. Winnick may not have been acting alone... it may have been a conspiracy... with a person with distinctively (ahem) European origins.
Oh no, perhaps I've said too much.
patent 2,689,502
But don't let anyone know where you heard this!
:D :D :D :D :D
You guys are having some fun here!
I just talked with the producer; they may have aired a program last season on a topic that might be similar to the one that I have asked them to look into. She does not believe there is much overlap, but she has to view the aired program to make sure.
cosmonot
09-02-2008, 11:35
Interesting, but SCIENCE NEWS actually spell like that or did something get translated funny?
- techic
- lentieulations
What was the date??
See post #106.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=884557&postcount=106
This is the end matter from the journal Science, 1942. Link to PDF is in that post as well.
I have deleted my posting on the same material as above.
It seems that Winnek's full name is Douglas Fredwill Winnek Coffey.
See post #106.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=884557&postcount=106
This is the end matter from the journal Science, 1942. Link to PDF is in that post as well.
Thanks... I missed that. 1942 explains the peculiar spelling too... perhaps an OCR issue rather than some sort of archaic American scientific language.
Raid,
You tell little about what this camera weighs, what it is made of etc.
If it is of machined heavy steel it has, most likely, never been in a plane. Then it would be made of aluminium, magnesium - even plywood. Think of these Stratofortresses stressed to it's range limit. How could they 'afford' to carry a camera of cast iron construction? And why? If it is 'very heavy' it is far more likely that some X-ray application. Highly likely.
- No, I think Truman did right about dropping the A-bombs. Indeed, Truman is one of my favourite US presidents. What the current US government is doing in Afganistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Somalia, Georgia - I could go on, is far worse.
Raid,
You tell little about what this camera weighs, what it is made of etc.
If it is of machined heavy steel it has, most likely, never been in a plane. Then it would be made of aluminium, magnesium - even plywood. Think of these Stratofortresses stressed to it's range limit. How could they 'afford' to carry a camera of cast iron construction? And why? If it is 'very heavy' it is far more likely that some X-ray application. Highly likely.
Olson,
Two men can carry the camera with its biggest lens. I have never lifted the camera, and it is painted black, so I don't know which metal was used to build it. It weighs less than an average human being.
According to what I have received in one email, the camera was first used in the lab and in later years it was used for reconaissance. It was also mentioned that Winnek trained the Commander on how to use the camera.
It occurs to me that they may have needed a 3D camera, and the Trivision was one of the first 3D cameras.
NIKON KIU
09-19-2008, 20:30
Can I say something without causing grief???
Kiu
Can I say something without causing grief???
Kiu
Of course, you can. What do you want to say?
I found this link for a 1947 issue of Popular Science in which the inventor Douglas Winnek and his Trivision camera is discussed. They also mention to value of the camera for aerial photography.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zycDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA137&dq=douglas+winnek+camera&ei=e8g2S6rvEoeUMYagkeYI&cd=1#v=onepage&q=douglas%20winnek%20camera&f=false
Latest: I have given the camera and three lenses to the Physics Department at the Univ. of West Florida as a long term loan for use in the labs.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.