Trying to recreate an aerial photo from the 1930s

[AgPhotoWings]

I’ve done that, which has gotten me to this point. I can align major features in one plane, such as the river, but features nearer and farther don’t align. This video shows what I’ve done so far. Note that the bridge shown actually is aligned. The old photo shows the original bridge, which was torn down and rebuilt in the 60s and repositioned one block farther north from the original.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

All the old View cameras had the ability to tilt the lens , though I doubt that any aerial cameras would have used this technique as the aircraft would have been constantly moving ...though dark room enlargers could change perspective.

 

[PointG]

I don't have photoshop (can't bring myself to pay Adobe $20 per month or whatever it is for life) but I do have PaintShop Pro.

I have the $9.99 a month plan and swear by it. It's worth it just for the Lightroom features organizing my photos. For Photoshop CC, Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CC, great tutorials and 20GB of cloud storage for me it's a no brainer, but I do shoot a lot of photos.
BTW I believe that even after you cancel the subscription it keeps working but you loose the storage and updates.
YMMV
PS: love the idea of the shot, will try to use the same concept for a project for my small town, thanks!

 

[mfc]

Another idea: make a hemispherical panorama then view it using PanGazer .. you can then zoom in and out and adjust the viewpoint to suit. Once the view looks good, it can be saved as a regular JPG image.

 

[John Suhr]

Was that a thing in the 1930's? I am impressed if it was!

I would just get in the air in the general area and just take a ton of shots, moving around after every shot. Up, Down, left, and right. The cross my fingers! I would love to see what you end up with! Cool idea!

Photoshop has many warping tools, if you could put the original in the background layer you can pretty much drag, pull and warp to make them
Match

 

[simsurf]

Without knowing the original lens/camera I think it's all just pissing into the wind....

 

[sar104]

Without knowing the original lens/camera I think it's all just pissing into the wind....

Why is that relevant? This is linear optics - as long as the image is taken from the same point, with as wide or wider field of view, then the original perspective can be reproduced.

 

[ac0j]

Why is that relevant? This is linear optics - as long as the image is taken from the same point, with as wide or wider field of view, then the original perspective can be reproduced.

Yes, But how do you reproduce what may have been done when printing that original image.

 

[sar104]

Yes, But how do you reproduce what may have been done when printing that original image.

It's unlikely much was done at all (why would it) but, if it was, then it's just a geometric transformation.

 

[PaulK]

I live in a small town, and I’ve come across an aerial photo of the town from the 1930s. I think it would be cool to take a photo from (roughly) the same altitude, heading, and angle with my Mavic 2 to compare how the town has grown since then. I’ve tried visually matching, and I think I’ve gotten close, but I can tell something still isn’t right. Is there a technique, perhaps something used in aerial reconnaissance that I can use to mathematically get much closer than I am able to by visual comparison?

I don't think in 30's there was

I live in a small town, and I’ve come across an aerial photo of the town from the 1930s. I think it would be cool to take a photo from (roughly) the same altitude, heading, and angle with my Mavic 2 to compare how the town has grown since then. I’ve tried visually matching, and I think I’ve gotten close, but I can tell something still isn’t right. Is there a technique, perhaps something used in aerial reconnaissance that I can use to mathematically get much closer than I am able to by visual comparison?

The old photo was taken prox. from 900 ft and the lens used was between 50 and 70 mm.
And I thing you need to go more to the left (referring to your video
The closest much ,you might have to edit both photos ( by adding distortion on one and removing on another's)

 

[RobH2]

I live in a small town, and I’ve come across an aerial photo of the town from the 1930s. I think it would be cool t.....to mathematically get much closer than I am able to by visual comparison?

One thing you can try is a software called SynthEyes. It's a 3d match move software we 3d guys use to merge video with 3d typographical models. It will scan video and create a virtual 3d camera at the exact position that the original footage capturing camera was at. I believe there is a free or demo version that might be able to do what you need.

 

[Dizzy1971]

Probably taken at about the same angle but higher and farther with a longer lens. With the M2P you'd have to go to that point and do a bunch of cropping/distorsion correction to try and mimic that.

But probably what causes most visible difference and lack of appeal is that on the old photo the roads are prominent and kind of the main subject, yet now you pretty much can't see them at all and there's nothing to attract your eye anymore.

Exactly correct.

 

[simsurf]

Yes, But how do you reproduce what may have been done when printing that original image.

Focal length. F stop. Every lens has its own characterstics.

 

[sar104]

Focal length. F stop. Every lens has its own characterstics.

Aperture affects depth of field, but everything is effectively at infinity, so irrelevant to these images. Focal length simply changes the field of view - provided it is large enough that's all that matters. There may have been lens distortions in the original but those were probably small (it wasn't especially wide angle), and either the old image or the new image can be adjusted to compensate. The only thing that really matters and cannot be adjusted for in post-processing is the location from which it was taken.

 

[Ed_2020]

I live in a small town, and I’ve come across an aerial photo of the town from the 1930s. I think it would be cool to take a photo from (roughly) the same altitude, heading, and angle with my Mavic 2 to compare how the town has grown since then. I’ve tried visually matching, and I think I’ve gotten close, but I can tell something still isn’t right. Is there a technique, perhaps something used in aerial reconnaissance that I can use to mathematically get much closer than I am able to by visual comparison?

Odds are it was handheld at the time, you can see there was forward tilt, so you need to do that too, maybe not more than 20 degrees down.

I would try a transparency overlay on my screen, with the main landmarks traced. By the size of trees (specially pines), it seems your height / distance is almost perfect, maybe you need some yaw and gimbal-down adjustments.

It seems it should be a little more to the right, combined with a bit of left yaw input.

 

[mfc]

Odds are it was handheld at the time, you can see there was forward tilt, so you need to do that too, maybe not more than 20 degrees down.

I would try a transparency overlay on my screen, with the main landmarks traced. By the size of trees (specially pines), it seems your height / distance is almost perfect, maybe you need some yaw and gimbal-down adjustments.

It seems it should be a little more to the right, combined with a bit of left yaw input.

Again, PanGazer should be just the thing for this -- start with the hemispherical display and yaw & tilt (drag with mouse for fine control) until correct, then 'Save view as Image'.

 

[bcfd29]

I’ve done that, which has gotten me to this point. I can align major features in one plane, such as the river, but features nearer and farther don’t align. This video shows what I’ve done so far. Note that the bridge shown actually is aligned. The old photo shows the original bridge, which was torn down and rebuilt in the 60s and repositioned one block farther north from the original.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

that is some nice work!

 

[Cymruflyer]

I have the $9.99 a month plan and swear by it. It's worth it just for the Lightroom features organizing my photos. For Photoshop CC, Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CC, great tutorials and 20GB of cloud storage for me it's a no brainer, but I do shoot a lot of photos.
BTW I believe that even after you cancel the subscription it keeps working but you loose the storage and updates.
YMMV
PS: love the idea of the shot, will try to use the same concept for a project for my small town, thanks!

No after you cancel it will not allow you to do anything with it, otherwise we would all do that. You will be locked out a nd any of your Photoshop file images you had, will no longer be viewable in that format.