Happy surprise at 40000 feet
April 11, 2011 3:32 PM Subscribe
Photographer Nate Bolt, on a overnight San Francisco to Paris flight, set up a time lapse camera to record the journey (with permission), and found midflight that he was shooting an aurora borealis.
Apparently it was only visible via the camera; he said the cabin lights were too bright to see the aurora with the naked eye. Full trip video, clocking in at 2 minutes.
Apparently it was only visible via the camera; he said the cabin lights were too bright to see the aurora with the naked eye. Full trip video, clocking in at 2 minutes.
Thank goodness he did it "with permission" or in this day and age it mightn't have only been the aurora borealis that was getting shot.
posted by fairmettle at 3:44 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by fairmettle at 3:44 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]
Cool.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 4:03 PM on April 11, 2011
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 4:03 PM on April 11, 2011
The World Famous: "I like that he told the crew that it was and art project and not for commercial purposes and then right out of the box in his interview pitches his "cognitive science research firm" when asked why he did it."
I'm not sure what you're accusing him of, exactly. I'm pretty sure if I did some art project for fun that ended up getting me on national TV I'd figure out some way to plug my company. Isn't that the usual deal anyway, when people go on these shows? You get my content for your show, and I get publicity for myself?
posted by danny the boy at 4:31 PM on April 11, 2011
I'm not sure what you're accusing him of, exactly. I'm pretty sure if I did some art project for fun that ended up getting me on national TV I'd figure out some way to plug my company. Isn't that the usual deal anyway, when people go on these shows? You get my content for your show, and I get publicity for myself?
posted by danny the boy at 4:31 PM on April 11, 2011
Recent related FPP: 'Time lapse video of an aurora borealis, by Terje Sorgjerd.'
posted by ericb at 4:40 PM on April 11, 2011
posted by ericb at 4:40 PM on April 11, 2011
The photos during take-off and landing are all computer models and totally rendered because I would never use an electronic device when the FAA prohibits them.
Is that a joke? I don't see anything that looks obviously fake, short of there being a Google RunwayView that I haven't heard about.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 4:45 PM on April 11, 2011
Is that a joke? I don't see anything that looks obviously fake, short of there being a Google RunwayView that I haven't heard about.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 4:45 PM on April 11, 2011
NAID - I think that was him covering his ass for having done something kinda illegal.
posted by dnash at 4:49 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by dnash at 4:49 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
Isn't that the usual deal anyway, when people go on these shows? You get my content for your show, and I get publicity for myself?
Kind of. Depends on the show. I've seen game show contestants plug their firm, and once, long ago, Ebert & Roeper guest hosted a local Chicago radio show (on a station owned by the Chicago Tribune) and plug their Sun Times columns at the end.
posted by ZeusHumms at 4:50 PM on April 11, 2011
Kind of. Depends on the show. I've seen game show contestants plug their firm, and once, long ago, Ebert & Roeper guest hosted a local Chicago radio show (on a station owned by the Chicago Tribune) and plug their Sun Times columns at the end.
posted by ZeusHumms at 4:50 PM on April 11, 2011
nate bolt is a cool guy and runs a respectable usability research firm here in san francisco. it was probably relevant for him to plug his firm because they kept referring to him as "photographer nate bolt."
bolt | peters
posted by Señor Pantalones at 5:15 PM on April 11, 2011
bolt | peters
posted by Señor Pantalones at 5:15 PM on April 11, 2011
The photos during take-off and landing are all computer models and totally rendered because I would never use an electronic device when the FAA prohibits them.
Jeebus. Why bother to grope my junk when all it takes to bring down a plane these days is a DSLR?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:30 PM on April 11, 2011
Jeebus. Why bother to grope my junk when all it takes to bring down a plane these days is a DSLR?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:30 PM on April 11, 2011
FAR 91.21 describes the FAA rules for electronic devices. The key thing is an exemption for "any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference". Ie, it's pilot's discretion. In the commercial context that means it's company policy that decides. The reality is that portable electronic devices better not interfere with navigation. But I've heard enough stories from pilots about interference, particularly GPS interference, that I no longer think the "turn off all portable devices" thing is a complete joke.
This video is beautiful.
posted by Nelson at 5:47 PM on April 11, 2011
This video is beautiful.
posted by Nelson at 5:47 PM on April 11, 2011
Nate's a friend and this is awesome. Here's a similar video, SF/Amsterdam flight, also by someone I've met: Glowing Cities Under a Nighttime Sky.
posted by migurski at 10:11 PM on April 11, 2011
posted by migurski at 10:11 PM on April 11, 2011
This is awesome but I'd be surprised if he doesn't get in some shit for obviously lying about what he was doing it and recording during takeoff/landing. Nice project but a bit of an idiot for posting it online and then drawing attention to the fact he's lying.
posted by Jairus at 12:05 PM on April 12, 2011
posted by Jairus at 12:05 PM on April 12, 2011
« Older Maps Of U.S. Population Change, 2000-2010 | | | | | | | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(The fun stuff is about 1:10-1:30).
posted by mrgrimm at 3:43 PM on April 11, 2011