Old Vs New.....

Trying to recreate a shot taken nearly 100 years ago,  unfortunatly there is now an altitude limit in place here.




Taken with the Mini 2.




          [See My Other Content...]

Pretty close, considering. Interesting to see how the right-hand tower has deteriorated the most.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-21 01:08
Pretty close, considering. Interesting to see how the right-hand tower has deteriorated the most.

Thanks Mr B,   the lower wall has mostly disappeared into bushes too.

Have you tried the new vs old?   Theres a great site to get the old images from http://britainfromabove.org.uk/

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 01:32
Thanks Mr B,   the lower wall has mostly disappeared into bushes too.

Have you tried the new vs old?   Theres a great site to get the old images from http://britainfromabove.org.uk/

That's a handy tip. thanks!

Blériot53 Posted at 1-21 01:38
That's a handy tip. thanks!

Interested to see if you make use if it.

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 02:09
Interested to see if you make use if it.

The old B&W pictures appear to be copyright?

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 00:57
[view_image]

Wow DA, that's quite the comparison.    

Blériot53 Posted at 1-21 02:18
The old B&W pictures appear to be copyright?

As they are older than 25 years I dont think they can claim copyright.

DowntownRDB Posted at 1-21 02:59
Wow DA, that's quite the comparison.

Cheers DT,   I mentioned it was coming.

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 05:51
As they are older than 25 years I dont think they can claim copyright.

I wouldn't liketo argue the ins and outs of it - but it's probably more to do with not using them for monetary gain than anything else.

Nice try and not bad at all.

Very nice - The old view appears closer to birds eye.

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 02:09
Interested to see if you make use if it.

From their site, and my archived footage, this is the nearest I've got.
But I reckon I can replicate their shot much more accurately by doing another flight at 120m altitude and  about 100m to the left.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-21 06:35
I wouldn't liketo argue the ins and outs of it - but it's probably more to do with not using them for monetary gain than anything else.

Yes Id agree with you Mr B.

Depp Posted at 1-21 07:20
Nice try and not bad at all.

Cheers Depp.   

Frank Alonso Posted at 1-21 12:43
Very nice - The old view appears closer to birds eye.

Cheers Frank,  the old shot was definitely taken higher,  but as thats now the approach for an airport there is 196ft altitude limit in place there stopping me going that bit higher to get the same angle.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 00:52
From their site, and my archived footage, this is the nearest I've got.
But I reckon I can replicate their shot much more accurately by doing another flight at 120m altitude and  about 100m to the left.
[view_image]

I think your right,   bit more elevation and you'll be golden.

DAFlys Posted at 1-22 01:15
I think your right,   bit more elevation and you'll be golden.

The old shot was from 1946.  I have another one planned for later today.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 01:22
The old shot was from 1946.  I have another one planned for later today.

I will keep and eye out for your thread.   

DAFlys Posted at 1-22 01:43
I will keep and eye out for your thread.

I've replicated that one again as best I can:-





Since the other one was close by I've done that as well - results later.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 02:05
I've replicated that one again as best I can:-

[view_image]

Just cropped that in a little and positioned them side by side for a better comparison.   I think it looks quite good.

DAFlys Posted at 1-22 02:15
Just cropped that in a little and positioned them side by side for a better comparison.   I think it looks quite good.

[view_image]

Yes thanks. It's about as near as I'll get, I think. I was at just under maximum legal height (120m) and the original shot was obviously from a plane at a much higher altitude - possibly 400m.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 02:25
Yes thanks. It's about as near as I'll get, I think. I was at just under maximum legal height (120m) and the original shot was obviously from a plane at a much higher altitude - possibly 400m.

Yes most of the shots are higher.  sometimes if the angle is greater you can get a better match but we can only do what we can do.

DAFlys Posted at 1-22 02:46
Yes most of the shots are higher.  sometimes if the angle is greater you can get a better match but we can only do what we can do.

There's a place near my daughter's house where there used to be marshalling yards and mills (all gone now) of which there's a pic from 1936.  There's a steep field behind directly along the line of the viewpoint.
If I go up there next time we visit, I reckon I can get a shot with the M2Z which  would equate to about 200m above the centre field of the shot, whilst only hovering at 120m above the hill (therefore legal)
With a bit of zoom from the M2Z I might get a good comparison of then and now.  Very different - a big new estate now stand where the mill,s used to be.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 02:05
I've replicated that one again as best I can:-

[view_image]

Nice. Bridge good broader and a new terrace...

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 03:03
There's a place near my daughter's house where there used to be marshalling yards and mills (all gone now) of which there's a pic from 1936.  There's a steep field behind directly along the line of the viewpoint.
If I go up there next time we visit, I reckon I can get a shot with the M2Z which  would equate to about 200m above the centre field of the shot, whilst only hovering at 120m above the hill (therefore legal)
With a bit of zoom from the M2Z I might get a good comparison of then and now.  Very different - a big new estate now stand where the mill,s used to be.

As long as theres something to tie the two together like a road junction.

Also have you seen https://www.geograph.org.uk

Depp Posted at 1-22 03:27
Nice. Bridge good broader and a new terrace...

Thanks Depp. There have been a good few changes to the area in those 75  years

DAFlys Posted at 1-22 03:27
As long as theres something to tie the two together like a road junction.

Also have you seen https://www.geograph.org.uk

I was  a major contributor to Geograph.org about 20 years ago - well up the table of participants. But then we emigrated

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 05:51
Cheers DT,   I mentioned it was coming.

You're very welcome DA.  

You sure did mention it was coming.  

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 04:08
I was  a major contributor to Geograph.org about 20 years ago - well up the table of participants. But then we emigrated

Ah,  I found them by chance,  the local paper had an article about a fire but they put up a picture of the wrong road,   but they credited the photographer so with some googling I found that site and the wrong image.  it seems they use images from that site in many article which made me wonder about posting some more of the mundane stuff there,  but I dont know how they feel about drone shots.

DowntownRDB Posted at 1-22 04:44
You're very welcome DA.  

You sure did mention it was coming.

Good for my word there I think.  

Great shot, great idea too!

DAFlys Posted at 1-22 06:27
Ah,  I found them by chance,  the local paper had an article about a fire but they put up a picture of the wrong road,   but they credited the photographer so with some googling I found that site and the wrong image.  it seems they use images from that site in many article which made me wonder about posting some more of the mundane stuff there,  but I dont know how they feel about drone shots.

It never became an issue for me - it was long before drones came on the scene.  Can't harm to ask  

DAFlys Posted at 1-21 00:57
[view_image]

Interesting image, thank you for sharing it.

ChrisJG Posted at 1-22 08:44
Great shot, great idea too!

Cheers Chris,   Ive done a couple of them now,  would like to do more time permitting.   Worth checking out the Britainfromabove.org.uk site.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 08:47
It never became an issue for me - it was long before drones came on the scene.  Can't harm to ask

I was looking last night and there are a number of aerial shots there so I guess drones shots would also count.

AeroNW Posted at 1-22 13:30
Interesting image, thank you for sharing it.

Cheers AeroNW.  

DAFlys Posted at 1-23 01:36
I was looking last night and there are a number of aerial shots there so I guess drones shots would also count.

The stipulation always was, the POV (ie the camera) has to be within the square being photographed.

Blériot53 Posted at 1-23 02:00
The stipulation always was, the POV (ie the camera) has to be within the square being photographed.

Ooh thats interesting,   Ive seen a few then that must break that to some degree.