Longtail Pics from Sebring 97

Here are some pics I took of the Longtail GTRs while at Sebring. Apologies if these have been posted before.. but these are my pictures and I'm just excite to have found this forum (thanks to Peloton25). Click on the thumbnails for larger pics.

http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/tn/mcgulf2.jpg (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/mcgulf2.jpg)

http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/tn/mcgulf3.jpg (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/mcgulf3.jpg)

http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/tn/Mc-Paddock.jpg (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/Mc-Paddock.jpg)

http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/tn/McWhiteside.jpg (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/FIA%20GT/McWhiteside.jpg)

Thanks for the new photos! :thumbsup:

I was at the following race out here at Laguna Seca but unfortunately hadn't really developed my passion for the F1's at that time. I didn't even bother to take a camera with me to the race. :banghead:

One of my friends did have a camera with him and so far I have rounded up 2 of the many photos he took. One is of the #1 Gulf car descending the corkscrew, and the other one is the #27 Parabolica car also descendig the corkscrew with a CLK GTR right on it's tail.

Once I get the rest and a scanner I will be sure to share them all. :cool:

>8^)
ER

Peloton25 said: I was at the following race out here at Laguna Seca but unfortunately hadn't really developed my passion for the F1's at that time. I didn't even bother to take a camera with me to the race.

Funny. I was about to go to Laguna Seca to follow the FIA GT cars.

I took 60 rolls of film down with me knowing that the F1s were coming to US shores. Took a total of 55 rolls (my boss ran in the Speedvision Endurance Series). But considering it was 3 big race series (FIA GT, IMSA/Professional Race Car, and Speedvision Endurance Championships) I had to bring my equipment. I have many more pics including the shot of the Fina #8 car catching fire. I'll have to round them up and start posting more.

Those photos above were take from top of a rental SUV. Made a 36x24 poster of similar to the 2nd shot that sits nicely in my office.

55 rolls? wow.

55 rolls? wow.

Yep. When I was actively taking photos I would take about 13 rolls of film per day per event plus about 5-6 rolls per side event.

So you have 3 days of track action, 3 major events.. mathematically I should have taken about 117+ rolls. I think the only thing preventing me from taking more rolls of film was that it was raining during the FIA GT race and I only brought the 60. Standing on top of the rental SUV in the rain was not exactly ideal, either.

I will be going digital soon. No sense lugging around all that X-Ray sensitive film anymore. But I do like the capability of making the 36x24 posters that ISO 100 film gives me.

OK, since you seem to know about photography--what resolution would you need to shoot at, in order to be able to make 24X36 prints out of digital pictures? And at 5 megapixels (which seems to be the standard today) what size does that work out to for each picture?

Thanks!

i like my digi. I keep running out of space tho. one of my 128's is defective and beyond warrinty coverage. So i have 1 + 1 of my dads plus another 128 in 64's, 32's and a 16. Decent, altho i'm getting an adaptor where i plug my memory stick into my ipod and it transfers all the pix to it. So theoretically i can get 14gb of pix at every show i go to :)

tvrfreak - My 5MP Sony camera produces a 2560x1920 resolution image when I shoot at full res. If you printed that photo out at 150dpi, which is fairly standard for decent print quality, it would measure roughly 17" x 13". Standard screen resolution is 72dpi, so those same photos on your monitor would measure roughly double those dimensions and you could print at that resolution as well, however you would probably notice the reduction in quality.

I would say you'll need a minimum of a 5MP digital to produce what you want with great quality. You might consider the new Sony F828 which offers 8MP and a unique RGB+E configuration for truer color. If you want to go high-end Digi SLR, someone else will have to help you there.

>8^)
ER

So, are nice posters printed at 150 dpi or 300 dpi? From your post, my understanding is that a decent 36X24 poster-quality shot should be shot at 5120X3840.

1. Is this correct or am I missing something?
2. Any idea what the image file sizes would be if your camera took 5 megapixel pics at 5120X3840 resolution?

minimagic, truly fascinating. Anything else you would like to share? :)

1.5mb for 3.2mp fine images on my camera (res is 2048 x 1536)

So, are nice posters printed at 150 dpi or 300 dpi? From your post, my understanding is that a decent 36X24 poster-quality shot should be shot at 5120X3840.

Actually I think most nice posters are printed at around 150dpi and that 300dpi would give you more of a true photo quality. Don't quote me on this as it's not my specialty.



2. Any idea what the image file sizes would be if your camera took 5 megapixel pics at 5120X3840 resolution?

Well 5MP is the resolution and in the case of my camera, it's 5MP photos work out to the 2560x1920 pixels I mentioned earlier. If you multiply 2560x1920 you'll get 4,915,200 pixels (which gets rounded up to 5MP).

The 5120x3840 resolution you mention would work out to over 19MP. You're certainly not going to find that available on any consumer or prosumer cameras these days.

I'm certainly not an expert on any of this stuff though, so you might want to check out www.dpreview.com - they have an excellent website covering all sorts of digital photography topics.

minimagic, truly fascinating. Anything else you would like to share? :)

LMAO!! :lol2:

>8^)
ER

minimagic, truly fascinating. Anything else you would like to share? :)

no, i think i'm done :iceslolan

The 5120x3840 resolution you mention would work out to over 19MP. You're certainly not going to find that available on any consumer or prosumer cameras these days.

I'm certainly not an expert on any of this stuff though, so you might want to check out www.dpreview.com - they have an excellent website covering all sorts of digital photography topics.

There are some cameras with 22Mp capabilities. Hasselblads digi-cam, an expensive SOB, has the capability of accepting a 22Mp back. The digital back cost close to $22K with the front being $5K - $6K plus $2K lens. As Peloton says: Not a normal consumer/prosumer camera. Besides these are more for studio and tripod shots. Not exactly something I would lug around at a track event.

If you're going to spend the time to enlarge a picture you obviously want the most resolution both in pixels and print. 11MP at 300 dpi would give you great 11x14 and possibly a decent 16x20. Pushing it past these leave something to be desired.

Most pros have taken a liking to the Canon 10D (6Mp). But keep in mind they are shooting for print which rarely exceed 9x12. The new Sony 8Mp is nice in the fact that it is priced well. Only issue is the ability to change lenses like the Canon. But for less than $1K you get the lense with the Sony and huge Mp.

Reasonably priced digital SLR cameras are still a little ways off from film cameras in the poster department.

I am also not an expert nor do I claim to be one... just a hobbyist who has done some research. The poster is the limiting reason why I haven't fully switch over to digital. But you have to love the portability and convenience of digital for webs and such. And not toting 55 rolls of precious fragile memories through the airport.

Wow, great info. I know dpreview.com well, but it seems to be more for researching cameras than learning about this aspect of digital photography.

Peloton, thanks, I think you misunderstood my second question slightly...what I was getting at was the file size so I could figure out what size memory card (or how many of the 1 gig deals) would be needed for, say, 200 pics. That's about the max number I can imagine taking without downloading to a PC/laptop.

So, anyone know what capacity memory media you would need to store 200 of the 24X36 poster-size shots at 300dpi? My 1600X1200 pics are just over 500k each on my 4.1 megapixel camera.

I believe the megapixel refers to the color depth or something, right? Or is it the file-size at a certain resolution?

Archangel, do you have a website with thumbnails of the pics you take? Do you specialize in race/action photography only? I would love to see other examples of your work!

Thanks tvrfreak. I do need to get a website so I can highlight most of my photos... but here is a couple of links: (Unfortunately none of the Webracer links work. That's been a dead project. And needless to say that's only a smattering of the photos I have in my collection.)

Porsche GTs (http://www.supratech.org/GTPorsches/index.html)

Watkins Glen (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Watkens%20Glen/frindex.html)

Mosport (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Mosport/index.html)

Sebring (http://www.supratech.org/revents/Sebring/index.html)

Road Atlanta (http://www.supratech.org/revents/RoadAtlanta/index.html) You'll have to excuse the enthusiastic webmaster for his comments. But he was kind enough to scan and setup the photos on the site.

I have concentrated on race shots... taking action shots of my boss' car for 3 -4 years. My portfolio does include some static shots as well. I'm the official photographer for the local Concourse d'Elegance. Nothing like catching the beads of water on the hood of a 1930s Bentley for that special shot that you would have to pay a handsome fee to do so in a studio. My preference is natural lighting. I haven't "graduated" to studio photography yet. :) Would show some wedding shots... but I don't think this is the forum for that. :grinno:

Well the file size on my 5MP shots is rougly 2 megabytes each taken on the "Fine" setting. I would guess the 8MP camera which could produce the shots you are looking for would be giving you a roughly 5 megabyte file at full resolution. You'd need about 1 Gig of memory to take that many photos at that quality without offloading to a seperate device. (All figures approximate)

I tried to explain this part, but maybe it wasn't clear - "MegaPixel rating" is really just the total number of pixels in an image. So a 2MP camera would take a roughly 1600x1200 reolution image for a total of 192,000 pixels - hence the 2MP rating. You know what my 5MP camera does by now from my previous posts. That 8MP camera can take a 3264x2448 which comes out to a total of 7,990,272 total pixels. That's where the Megapixel rating comes from on todays digital cameras, it really has nothing to do with any other aspect of the picture quality.

EDIT: Great photos Archangel - I borrowed a few more for the files... ;)

>8^)
ER

Peloton, got it now, thanks!!! It's the filesize at the max res that the camera is capable of...right?! I am a little slow, but I do get it eventually. Thanks! :)

I would call it the image size (in pixel dimension), but maybe that is what you meant. To me, file size is equal to data size.

Anyway, I think we have you all squared away now. When do we get our posters? :D

>8^)
ER

Perhaps sooner than you realize...!

Archangel, awesome pics. I love the GT1 in grey.

Thanks for the compliments.

Most of the pro - photojournalists, etc, are using 1Gig cards. Literally overnighting the cards to their home office. (I use 512Mg card for my small d-cam which I primarily use for vacation shots)

The people that are using the larger 11Mp and up are either dl direectly to their laptops or using mini-drives. I know Toshiba has introduced a mini 3.5 harddrive that is portable. With the d-SLR technology competition starting to heat up, it won't too long where they have mini-hard drives built into the d-SLRs.

Another good reference for d-SLR's is Digital Photo Pro magazine.