Gotham 7.5K: A Rare High Altitude Night Flight Above NYC | Hacker News Reader

Gotham 7.5K: A Rare High Altitude Night Flight Above NYC

storehouse.co

735 pointsdavidbarker112 comments

The images truly are breathtaking.

His note about the streets seeming like neurons is interesting, but I hope I'm not the only person who immediately thought the shots resembled an exaggerated extruded version of a chip's layered layout.

(Here's sort of a small version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Cell-Proc... )

It's a bit odd: the scale of the city is not quite large enough to look like a modern processor's layout, yet is tens/hundreds of thousands of times larger. The scale of complexity is boggling.

I was reminded of the quote from TRON Legacy:

> I tried to picture clusters of information as they moved through the computer. What did they look like? Ships? motorcycles? Were the circuits like freeways?

These shots definitely capture the city-to-circuit transitions from the films.

New York as a Microchip layout was the main theme of the intro of 'Hackers'. Check out around 0:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c4KG_8iTZM

That intro was responsible for introducing me to Orbital as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_(band)

Wow perfect reference.

Btw just in case you didn't know, you can link to specific times in youtube videos, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c4KG_8iTZM&t=55s

Yeah, it's a metaphor that gets explored a bit from time to time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJuy7LTBJk0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDB9g7l5srA

Koyaanisqatsi and Tron both did it in '82. I'm sure there are probably other, earlier examples, too.

very much so.. no doubt how the "Grid" in Tron was conceived.. in fact, these photos have a "tron" kind of feel to them (the saturation of some of those neon colors looks very EL)

Another breathtaking "circuit board" is Los Angeles -- at night. I immediately likened what I saw to a glowing circuit board without thinking twice. What a resemblance! Very computational.

Flying in from the east, descending over Riverside and heading towards LAX, presents an absolutely astonishing view below. Lit up in orderly sequence are a vast range of square blocks, freeway arteries, commercial corridors, and industrial complexes housing warehouse "chips" that are eerily reminiscent of a giant, organically-built, human-habitable computer. Tron-style. Hardly an end in sight if the weather works it out.

All breathtakingly illuminated in varying, relative intensity and motion (streetlamps, autos, traffic signals, spotlights, etc.), "powering" the whole damn machine of a human ant colony with electric life.

Please excuse my poor attempt at a poetic description, I have not been able to find a proper photo to share here, yet.

I used to do a lot of aerial photography over Los Angeles, typically in a Cessna with my head out of the window (very scary when you have glasses...). rashiedamini.daportfolio.com

Never was able to take photos of LA at night.

I love seeing what other people can do, though. Taking night photos while flying is a really daunting task! These really are great photos.

Cool photos! Yeah, after flying over NYC, Chicago, San Fran, Detroit, etc. at night, NOTHING has come close to LA circuitry. Perhaps Las Vegas and Phoenix, on a smaller scale, but I haven't had a chance to view those cities personally. Southwest suburbs are much denser than elsewhere (which I assume is due to water, among other constraints).

I've done the same w/ my head outside of a Cessna. Nothing like knowing exactly how the atmosphere really "feels" to the wings (in other words, the feel of the pressure of air required to lift the Cessna!)

The original Cosmos by Carl Sagan [1] has a fantastic episode called "The Persistence of Memory" in which he compares the collective intelligence and pathways of cities to the brain, DNA, etc. if you've never seen it, I highly recommend it.

1: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage

Lately I have been wondering if macro-behaviors themselves aren't something like streets in an old world city -- laid out thousands of years ago for long-forgotten purposes. I was in a meeting with a senior (in both age and position) technical advisor, asking about an HR issues in our organization. "Why haven't we tried [optimizing]?" I asked. Sparing HN the details, my organization conducts HR to minimize risks, not to maximize gains. "We tried once, but failed. The system now works. There's no need to change it." This system, originally programmed in DOS (yes, that DOS), was ported years ago over into an emulator that runs atop HTML (that's right -- to use this system our operators boot up an old version of IE that pretends it's DOS). And nobody has ever thought that perhaps there's a better way to do business. Solidified pathways. Cognitive arteries caked over in plaque over years of use. Like paved-over cobblestone.

You might enjoy the book http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incer...

have been meaning to tackle that, actually -- thanks for the nudge. i read The Bed of Procrustes a few years ago...

If you haven't watched Koyaanisqatsi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi), you really should.

Definitely reminiscent, though it's even more interesting when you compare different cities, especially those outside of America... here in Europe the layouts look very different, you don't have the same "grid". For example, London:

https://oxfordschoolofphotography.files.wordpress.com/2012/0...

Chicagoan here. Everytime I fly into O'Hare at night, its light being on the set of Tron; not that Tron actually had lit up sets of course. The city becomes a huge lit up grid. Unlike NYC, Chicago is fairly contiguous with no bodies of water breaking up the metro area. So you get views like these for as far as you can see:

http://blogs.voanews.com/tedlandphairsamerica/files/2010/07/...

One of my favorite things to do with new passengers is take them up and down the Hudson River corridor, an airspace that "tunnels through" the more tightly controlled airspaces of Newark and Laguardia. From the Verrazanno Bridge up the Manhattan side of the river at 1000 feet and exiting over the Tappan Zee (or vice versa, southbound on the Jersey side, or a round trip) is unforgettable for passengers.

These images are breathtaking, but the nofilter, in-real-life version are even moreso, IMO.

How difficult is it to get clearance to fly a helicopter or airplane over Manhattan as they did? It seems like an unnecessary risk given the population density. For that matter wouldn't it be possible for a terrorist to get approval by creating a ruse of a legitimate (but non essential) reason?

It isn't particularly difficult for a small aircraft, provided airline traffic isn't too busy. NYC ATC is usually pretty accommodating. There are helicopters constantly buzzing the city. Note that the terror threat is very small since the payload of these light aircraft is significantly less than driving a truck full of explosives at street level. Think typically less than 1,000 lbs vs 20,000 lbs.

Good point. Of course if they managed to get a hold of a Chinook they could do much more weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook

They actually use something like this to hoist HVAC units on roofs (so it's not a total stretch).

I was thinking also more in terms of the "terrorism" value of crashing anything of any size into a building in Manhattan vs. the raw damage. Of course airplanes of all sizes are also possible obviously.

Corey Lidle did it in Manhattan (accidentally), and someone did it intentionally in Austin a few years' back: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

It's just not that effective a means, even of terror, IMO. A rented truck, or a stolen delivery truck, would be wildly more effective.

In aviation is there an implied "see something say something"? By that I mean if you thought a pilot was acting strangely when you were in and around the airport how would you or other pilot's handle the situation? (I know it's a total "it depends" obviously.)

Yes, that's the catch phrase of AOPA's Airport Watch campaign, in concert with TSA and DHS: http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/888/~/aop...

Honestly, that program is more likely to turn up drug running or theft from airports/aircraft than terrorism.

In terms of seeing odd or unsafe behavior, I feel a moral obligation to talk to a pilot I see doing something unsafe. Talk to him/her, not call the Feds. There's a pretty lively debate about talk face-to-face vs call the Feds. While I've had excellent interactions with the FAA at every turn, I've also read absolute horror stories of other interactions, so I'm still inclined to offer a "word to the wise" type conversation rather than dropping a dime on someone. If I feared for my safety or the safety of others, and didn't want to talk directly to the person, there's ready and ample means to get such an inquiry started.

And of course, there are codes (that are basically an open secret) for hijack situations and it would not be hard to encode a message to ATC without using the most well-known code. I don't want to link them directly, but google "squawk codes" and it'll come right up.

Edit: here's a fascinating account that I have no reason to think is other than truthful: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.aviation.piloting/...

NY ATC hates giving VFR clearance in the area. Too much jet traffic to deal with. If you can get a word in edgewise, they'll often let you out over NJ (watch out for the Teterboro jets!) but I never see anyone heading out over Manhattan. You need to be above 2000' to be legal because of the height of the buildings and then you're starting to get into the altitudes the jets are using on approach to JFK or LGA.

Over the Hudson River (East River too) is VFR (uncontrolled) airspace up to 1500 feet [edit: this was changed to 1300 feet in 2009, after the accident referenced below] bank to bank up to the George Washington Bridge. My flight instructor told me that the radar shadow of the buildings makes it difficult to control, but I don't really know if that's the reason. You don't need ATC permission to fly there.

It's a zoo, though, pretty dense helicopter and small plane traffic, and everybody's looking at the big buildings, not the other planes. In 2009 a small plane and helicopter collided, killing 9 people. I've flown up there once, and it was totally worth it, but I probably wouldn't do it again.

That's not been my experience. I can regularly get my choice of the Hudson at 2000 or lower with a clearance (1100-2000 requires a clearance in most places). At night, I prefer lower as the buildings are more impressive when you're below the top of them. On a nice summer day, the VFR corridor can be a zoo, so I'll sometimes take the clearance at 1500 just to stay in less congested airspace.

If LGA is landing 13 or Newark is using 11/29, then you have a conflict with the airspace over the river, but it's very rare for Newark to use 11/29, and LGA traffic counts aren't all that high to present a conflict. Plus, if you're on a clearance and being controlled by LGA tower, they'll turn you if they need to to accommodate a departure or an arrival.

I often hear pilots complain they can't get a clearance through NYC Bravo airspace, but I've only once been turned down in probably 50 attempts. That was a Thanksgiving Wednesday when they had a radar outage and they were turning everyone away who wasn't landing inside the Bravo. I've found NYC tri-Bravo controllers some of the easiest and most accommodating approach controllers to work with.

Total envy that you (and the parent commenter) actually get to do this type of thing. (Meaning fly private planes or helis).

Shoot me an email (in my profile)

A couple HN posters contacted me by email, and here's some additional info I sent them in response to their questions specific to the Hudson River VFR corridor.

FAA Safety course required to access the corridor: https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=...

Cockpit reference material: http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/79/776/...

Sun n Fun (conference) presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3u_x6qhut0

An acquaintance of mine manufactures a reasonably-priced gyro mount for in-flight photography and videography and is based out of NY. He has some excellent sample videos on his site as well: http://www.aerialexposures.com/video3.htm

Those gyro heads are really reasonably priced! Source: wanted to build my own for heavy gear.

Coming full circle, the photographer in the OP has reviewed your acquaintance's gyro mount:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/09/03/5d-mkii-gadget-atm...

Most people can learn to fly. It's a bit pricy but maybe not as bad as you think. Easier to do than drive a car, except for when you make a mistake. Look for a flight school nearby. The intro flight is usually at a steep discount.

There is absolutely nothing like flying a small plane. My first night solo (flew down the shore, over Atlantic City) is one of my best memories.

"except for when you make a mistake"

That's the part that concerns me...

That part of my comment was addressing flying over Manhattan itself, not the Hudson. A bit unclear, sorry.

In a small plane or a helicopter?

Small plane.

Love them. Why disable right click though?

document.getElementsByTagName('img')

https://d12oemfd9cl6ha.cloudfront.net/i/images/imgs/27839146...

https://d12oemfd9cl6ha.cloudfront.net/i/images/imgs/27833893...

https://d12oemfd9cl6ha.cloudfront.net/i/images/imgs/27833887...

For comparison, here is the view from the Empire State at night with 30s exposures.

Not only his pictures are visually stunning, but also incredibly difficult to capture.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/63499655@N02/sets/721576298051...

That's 30 seconds at f9 at ISO 100. They were shooting at 3200-6400, at f1.4-2.8

Counting down, that's 30/100, 15/200, 8/400, 4/800, 2/1600, 1/3200 ... so same aperture cuts it down to 1 second.

Then increasing the aperture 1/f8, 0.5/f5.6 0.25/f4 (1/8second)/f2.8 (1/15second)/f2 (1/30second/f1.4).

That's still difficult to capture, but a wide lens and/or image stabilization will help. Getting all 50 megapixels sharp would be hard to do.

I'm sure many would love to get high-res versions of these pics, any chance he'll make them available?

This was shot on assignment for a magazine and Vincent Laforet is a professional photographer. Asking for high-res images shot on assignment is akin to asking a software developer to open-source the code they wrote under contract for an employer.

He or his customer might in theory sell them in some form (art prints?) or someone waving a number with enough zeros around might be able to license them, but results from pro shoots like that generally aren't just "made available", as cool as that might be.

You can get them if you look through the network request the browser makes. Largest I saw was 4096x3096, which is just perfect for desktop backgrounds!

View page source and find "original.jpg"...

http://pastebin.com/m0ww3pGK

You should not run all those in parallel. It's rude.

To anyone who wants to use that script: Remove the & on line 9.

Meh, I think cloudfront can handle it. That's what CDNs are for.

Thanks!

You may be able to get prints of these photos via his contact page http://fineart.laforetvisuals.com/Contact/1/caption

I've worked on some web things for Vincent in my days in the photo industry. He's always been a favorite photographer of mine. His technical ability and attention to detail in photography is mind-blowing.

What's even more impressive is he took to cinematography a few years back and seems to be just as skilled.

If you haven't seen them yet, check out his tilt-shift images: http://agonistica.com/tilt-shift-photography-by-vincent-lafo...

And here is a commercial he filmed: http://vimeo.com/17355509

There was an interview for Fstoppers a while ago, in which he gives more details about the shooting:

https://fstoppers.com/aerial/gotham-above-exclusive-intervie...

FTA: > Had we gone just a few thousand more feet up (around 11,000-12,000 feet) we would have needed oxygen masks!

Really? I was roaming around at the top of Mauna Kea last summer (14K'), and hiked to the top of Mt Lassen too (10.5K'), but never felt the need for ozygen masks.

Regulations require it, also air likes to cling to to the surface, plus you had a chance to acclimate and/or are experienced with such a thing.

The regulations actually don't require it. Under FAA rules for general aviation ("Part 91"), you need oxygen between 12,500 and 14,000 feet if you remain there for more than 30 minutes, and it's only once you climb above 14,000 feet that the pilot unequivocally has to have it. You need to get to 15,000 feet before the passengers have to have oxygen provided.

(More: http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/...)

Yup this is right.

Additionally, a cold winter night means dense air which means more oxygen. As far as his lungs/brain are concerned, it's not 7,500 feet, it's more like 6,000 feet.

Ya when skydiving we always exited between 12 and 14k. Only at 15k did you need a mask on the ride up.

Note, the Vimeo video is not embedded, it's just an screenshot. Confused me for a bit there...

Here's the video: http://vimeo.com/115292381

strange colors - bluish/greenish like toys - real or camera/filter quirks?

One can wonder what images this camera would produce http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146909-darpa-shows-off-1-...

"With an imaging unit that totals 1.8 billion pixels, ARGUS captures video (12 fps) that is detailed enough to pick out birds flying through the sky, or a lost toddler wandering around. "

The "like toys" effect is from the tilt-shift lens he used for some of the shots. Not sure about the colors though.

Ahhh, thanks so much for that. I KNEW it looked like pictures from a diorama or a model train or something but I couldn't put my finger on WHY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking

That's faking the effect of a tilt-shift lens [0] -- which gives you the same effect, but there are often details that are wrong because most people apply it in seconds in PS without thinking how far each thing should be, they just do a gradient.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt–shift_photography

"White" light sources are generally not really white. For example compared to sunlight ordinary light bulbs are a bit orange and fluorescent tubes have a green hue. Our brain mostly ignores these differences, but a camera sensor does not. The author might have turned up the saturation on these images though, I don't know how strong the difference is supposed to look.

NYC is supposed to complete its switch to LEDs by 2017 (but no idea on the current progress)

Street lamps in NYC are mostly the old-school sodium lights still, which give the eerie yellow hue to the smaller side streets. I with that when they switch to LEDs that they keep that would keep that color (but they wont).

Can someone explain the rainbow-like colors? This is from the lenses/postprocessing/other?

Big advertisements probably have a lot more color than the normal red-yellow-white you see from traffic. Chances are it's not quite so vivid to the naked eye, but a camera sensor with nice flat full-spectrum sensitivity can reveal all the color. You see this a lot with telescope photos; in low light our eyes mostly just pick everything in the sky as white dots, but a photograph can capture a lot more.

I think that's time square. So the colors are real, from all the big screens with ads that stay lit at night.

Yes, that is Times Square and the theatre district. It really is that colorful at night

can anyone speak to the non-obvious (like more megapixel) advantages of shooting this on the medium format Mamiya that he mentions? I've always been intrigued by MF cameras, but they cost so much more causing them to be inaccessible (to me anyway).

My understanding is: 1) More megapixels, 2) a larger sensor (more than twice as large) means more signal-to-noise at each pixel site which means less noise in low light, 3) the Mamiya has far greater dynamic range (around one stop greater, double the amount of light).

You're correct. What I'm wondering is why they used a 1DX instead of a Sony A7S? The ISO range on the Sony would of probably outdone both Canon and the Mamiya.

Taking photos at ISO 409,600 would be pretty awesome IMO.

You don't really want photos at ISO 409600 per se, though, you just want photos at the lowest ISO that can get you the necessary depth-of-field for your shot (here extended with tilt-shift lens) at whatever shutter speed avoids being too shaky. And then you want as high of a dynamic range of possible, so you can distinguish the brightest brights from the darkest darks in a single shot.

If you can do that already with the sensitivity you've brought, higher ISO doesn't buy you anything...

Why use the Canon 1DX? The photographer has a long-standing and public relationship with Canon.

Why not use the Sony A7S? The photographer uses a Canon 200-400mm f/4 lens, and the nearest Sony equivalent is 70-400mm f/4-5.6, which means at the long end it captures only half as much light, instantly negating any possible ISO range advantage offered by the A7S.

Old-school medium-format film cameras are reasonably accessible -- you can get a Mayima 6x7 and a meh-okay lens for around $400, and even with a damned good lens can find lots of stuff in the sub-$2000 range. It's the digital medium-format rigs that break into five-figure territory -- and it takes a good little amount of film / processing costs to make up for that expense for the hobbyist.

Myself, I'm using my grandfather's old Canon 50mm/f1.4 on a Canon Model 7 rangefinder (essentially the last battery-free Canon) for film and the same lens on a (used) Leica M8 for digital. Nice fast lens, but still in 35mm-land.

It's an overall larger system. A larger sensor means less noise (assuming fewer pixels per inch, which is true in this case). A larger lens means less distortion (because any imperfections are smaller relative to the entire glass).

And it's very expensive, which means even a relatively small advantage in image quality will make the resulting pictures more valuable, at least for a few years until someone else does this again with newer technology. DSLR photographs are truly commoditized now, but medium format are not, never have been, and probably never will be.

These remind me of some of the scenes in the end of the movie "Enter The Void".

I would love to purchase these in high res and frame them, where can I do that?

I would like to purchase these in high resolution too.

The photographer mentioned in the comments that they are working on it now. They should be up at the site below, or if you are impatient you can use the contact form to ask.

http://fineart.laforetvisuals.com/

Vincent Laforet was also one of the first to shoot a video on the Canon 5D MkII - also involving helicopters over NYC. http://vimeo.com/7151244

Those images are amazing. Great photographer, and great idea at this unique perspective. Although I think the height above the city drama was a bit overplayed.

Again, Just freaking Awesome!

An acquaintance of mine manufactures a reasonably-priced gyro mount for in-flight photography and videography and is based out of NY.

He has some excellent sample videos on his site from the NYC area (Statue of Liberty, GW bridge, Rockefeller Center ice rink, etc):

http://www.aerialexposures.com/video3.htm

Truly amazing! I wonder what would happen to a large city like that if in a blackout for 3 days.

No need to wonder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977

Yep that's what I was thinking, "Thirty-five blocks of Broadway were destroyed".

As someone with a bad fear of heights: beautiful pictures but...shudder.

The narrator in this one claims to fear heights and electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGoaXZwFlJ4

Wooooooww, this is the most amazing photos i've seen for a long time.

Reminds me of the scene from Contact

     - they're alive

I so want a 2880 image of that for my desktop background.

yes yes, and I want posters, I'll pay. Have you found anywhere to find them?

If you take off the parameters, the images are 3000x2000.

Hm, how high can drone/baloon legally fly?

Without permits, I think it's limited to 500 ft. Not that high, I'm afraid.

The FAA says 400 ft. for UAV.

Idle curiosity: I wonder how high a hobbyist unit could fly straight up before running out of batteries.

Model gliders soaring in thermals can exceed 2,000 ft. Since the energy is supplied by the rising air, altitude is limited only by the pilot's ability to perceive the aircraft's orientation at that distance!

I was wondering about that as well. According to the manufacturer, the DJI Phantom[1] (a common consumer drone) has a max vertical speed of 6 m/s. So in 10 minutes (battery lasts about 20, 10 up, 10 down), you could reach 3600m. Higher than these pics were taken! (you remote probably won't reach that...)

Not sure if the max speed is up or down... [1]: http://www.dji.com/product/phantom/feature

The heck with down, it'd be interesting to try a one-way trip! I wonder how the thinner air up high affects things.

For the one way trip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxdeRx2fLA (Not me or anyone I know, that is a pretty stupid flight).

About the thinner air... I regularly fly a hexacopter at 7500' (MSL here in the mountains).

With all other things being equal, the thinner air means you have to run the motors at much higher speeds to appreciate the same lift, and the resulting loss in battery life is pretty significant. The same configuration that gets a 30 minute flight a 1000' MSL will only do about 12 minutes at 7500'.

above the clouds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAoSHxzEcT4

I think this is a better video of above-the-clouds flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxdeRx2fLA

Balloons can actually go much higher (not sure on the rules with balloons) but UAV's are limited to 400ft AGL and not within 5miles of an airport by the FAA.

There is no general altitude limit in the U.S., but you must not present a risk of collision with manned aircraft. Certain areas have additional restrictions (e.g. near airports, large sporting events or in the vicinity of Washington, DC).

The "400 ft" limit for model aircraft is purely advisory and is not part of any binding FAA rule.

Additional discussion here: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2012/03/08/your-ques...

I had one of my balloons hit 102k ft. I don't think there is a height regulation.

This [0] is all from 96k ft.

[0] - http://robotrising.org/StratoSphere/collection.html

Truly stunning photographs. Wow.

Amazing!!!!!!

FUck!!!! Beautiful images!!!!!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com