Scope camera weight


Marian Beermann
 

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good idea)

Cheers, Marian


Dave Seiter
 

Marion,
I just put a c-53 on my shipping scale; it's 5lbs, 11oz.  Center of mass feels like it's about in the middle, so about 4.5"?
-Dave

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 10:06:49 AM PDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de> wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good idea)

Cheers, Marian


Dave Daniel
 

Did you check the Tektronix catalogs for weights?

DaveD

On May 4, 2021, at 13:06, Marian B <public@enkore.de> wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good idea)

Cheers, Marian





greenboxmaven
 

The weight of the camera is not the only force acting on the front of the scope. Loading the film packs, and especially pulling the development tabs would add stresses that could easily exceed the weight of the camera. Because Polaroid pack film (or the Fuji repacement) is not in production at the moment, has anyone investigated converting the cameras to use current Polaroid film or Fuji Instax?

    Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY

On 5/4/21 13:29, Dave Daniel wrote:
Did you check the Tektronix catalogs for weights?

DaveD

On May 4, 2021, at 13:06, Marian B <public@enkore.de> wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good idea)

Cheers, Marian






Daniel Koller
 

Hmmmm....   The older scopes, well, no, all of them, also had to deal with fairly large lateral forces as you pulled the little white tab and then the big yellow tab to process the film on the old Polaroid pack film cameras they used.   So they had to hold more than just the weight on the camera.   
On the other hand, that was when the scopes were new, and the plastic was not "aged" for 40-50 years!!  So the actual weight of the camera may be a red herring.   The real question is how "lucky" do you feel about hanging a modern SLR on there.  I don't think I'd have any problem hanging a canon digital point and shoot, but my 2 lb Nikon D750 with a macro lens (2 more lbs), no way.
Maybe it would be better to run a long nylon strap to a rubber-coated metal hook that loops around the back of the instrument, and use that to support the weight of the camera, rather than relying on the plastic rim of a hard-to-find faceplate.
Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:06:59 PM EDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de> wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good idea)

Cheers, Marian


David Holland
 

Use a cell phone instead of a full on camera?

I mean I guess you could hang a DSLR, and lense off the scope, but do you
really need a 24+ megapixel RAW image of your oscilloscope screen?
(Obviously of the scope itself, yes, but the screen too? :-) )

Speaking of the 2246, I cobbled together a hood, with a little shelf on the
back end for one out of some sheets of plastic, and plopped a point & shoot
camera on it. It hooked on that slot you're talking about. It worked
"adequately" allowing for the light leakage, and the need to turn down
intensity, and illumination knobs.

David


On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Daniel Koller via groups.io <kaboomdk=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hmmmm.... The older scopes, well, no, all of them, also had to deal
with fairly large lateral forces as you pulled the little white tab and
then the big yellow tab to process the film on the old Polaroid pack film
cameras they used. So they had to hold more than just the weight on the
camera.
On the other hand, that was when the scopes were new, and the plastic was
not "aged" for 40-50 years!! So the actual weight of the camera may be a
red herring. The real question is how "lucky" do you feel about hanging a
modern SLR on there. I don't think I'd have any problem hanging a canon
digital point and shoot, but my 2 lb Nikon D750 with a macro lens (2 more
lbs), no way.
Maybe it would be better to run a long nylon strap to a rubber-coated
metal hook that loops around the back of the instrument, and use that to
support the weight of the camera, rather than relying on the plastic rim of
a hard-to-find faceplate.
Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:06:59 PM EDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de>
wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian











greenboxmaven
 

Because the beam on the scope is moving, an electronic camera might not record the image as well as photography would. The Polaroid black and white film was very fast, and they also made some types that were optimized for scope recording.  An Instax Wide camera would be an interesting one to adapt, the print would be somewhat smaller than the original Polaroid. Shutterbugs everywhere are pressuring and praying someone to begin producing Polaroid pack film again, it is regarded as a unique and desirable artistic medium. When Fuji said they were stopping production of their replacement for Polaroid pack film because it was not selling well enough, others approached them about buying the equipment so they could continue producing the film themselves. Fuji refused, and photographers have not been kind to them for doing so. Film photography is growing, and the choices of film are as well. Guess which brand has lost buyers.

   Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY

On 5/4/21 15:07, David Holland wrote:
Use a cell phone instead of a full on camera?

I mean I guess you could hang a DSLR, and lense off the scope, but do you
really need a 24+ megapixel RAW image of your oscilloscope screen?
(Obviously of the scope itself, yes, but the screen too? :-) )

Speaking of the 2246, I cobbled together a hood, with a little shelf on the
back end for one out of some sheets of plastic, and plopped a point & shoot
camera on it. It hooked on that slot you're talking about. It worked
"adequately" allowing for the light leakage, and the need to turn down
intensity, and illumination knobs.

David


On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Daniel Koller via groups.io <kaboomdk=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hmmmm.... The older scopes, well, no, all of them, also had to deal
with fairly large lateral forces as you pulled the little white tab and
then the big yellow tab to process the film on the old Polaroid pack film
cameras they used. So they had to hold more than just the weight on the
camera.
On the other hand, that was when the scopes were new, and the plastic was
not "aged" for 40-50 years!! So the actual weight of the camera may be a
red herring. The real question is how "lucky" do you feel about hanging a
modern SLR on there. I don't think I'd have any problem hanging a canon
digital point and shoot, but my 2 lb Nikon D750 with a macro lens (2 more
lbs), no way.
Maybe it would be better to run a long nylon strap to a rubber-coated
metal hook that loops around the back of the instrument, and use that to
support the weight of the camera, rather than relying on the plastic rim of
a hard-to-find faceplate.
Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:06:59 PM EDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de>
wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian












Marian Beermann
 

Thanks Dave, so my setup would weigh half as much but extend twice as much
- so I guess it should be okay.

Cheers, Marian

Am Di., 4. Mai 2021 um 19:16 Uhr schrieb Dave Seiter <d.seiter@att.net>:

Marion,
I just put a c-53 on my shipping scale; it's 5lbs, 11oz. Center of mass
feels like it's about in the middle, so about 4.5"?
-Dave
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 10:06:49 AM PDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de>
wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian











Marian Beermann
 

I didn't but I now I see that they do have the weights for everything -
good to know!

Cheers, Marian

Am Di., 4. Mai 2021 um 19:29 Uhr schrieb Dave Daniel <kc0wjn@gmail.com>:

Did you check the Tektronix catalogs for weights?

DaveD

On May 4, 2021, at 13:06, Marian B <public@enkore.de> wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the
center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian









Marian Beermann
 

That's a good point, it is much much lighter, and because it is wide-angle
it is also a lot closer, so it's less bulky and less material overall. The
issue I have with this is that it's difficult to mount in a repeatable
fashion - on my cameras I just have these standard adapter plates on there,
and if you align the marking on them it's pretty much in the exact same
spot every time. Cell phone holders are more awkward. But maybe it's not
worth it and I should just go for a cellphone holder as a more reasonable
solution.

Thanks for the suggestion
-Marian

Am Di., 4. Mai 2021 um 21:07 Uhr schrieb David Holland <
david.w.holland@gmail.com>:

Use a cell phone instead of a full on camera?

I mean I guess you could hang a DSLR, and lense off the scope, but do you
really need a 24+ megapixel RAW image of your oscilloscope screen?
(Obviously of the scope itself, yes, but the screen too? :-) )

Speaking of the 2246, I cobbled together a hood, with a little shelf on the
back end for one out of some sheets of plastic, and plopped a point & shoot
camera on it. It hooked on that slot you're talking about. It worked
"adequately" allowing for the light leakage, and the need to turn down
intensity, and illumination knobs.

David


On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Daniel Koller via groups.io <kaboomdk=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hmmmm.... The older scopes, well, no, all of them, also had to deal
with fairly large lateral forces as you pulled the little white tab and
then the big yellow tab to process the film on the old Polaroid pack film
cameras they used. So they had to hold more than just the weight on the
camera.
On the other hand, that was when the scopes were new, and the plastic was
not "aged" for 40-50 years!! So the actual weight of the camera may be a
red herring. The real question is how "lucky" do you feel about
hanging a
modern SLR on there. I don't think I'd have any problem hanging a canon
digital point and shoot, but my 2 lb Nikon D750 with a macro lens (2 more
lbs), no way.
Maybe it would be better to run a long nylon strap to a rubber-coated
metal hook that loops around the back of the instrument, and use that to
support the weight of the camera, rather than relying on the plastic rim
of
a hard-to-find faceplate.
Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:06:59 PM EDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de

wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the
center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian















Dave Daniel
 

Don’t forget that the Tektronix cameras were triggered from the scope itself; that’s what the three little contacts on the scope bezel are for.

If one uses a different camera, one will have to figure out how to trigger the camera so the photo is synchronized with the scope trace correctly.

DaveD

On May 4, 2021, at 15:44, Marian B <public@enkore.de> wrote:

That's a good point, it is much much lighter, and because it is wide-angle
it is also a lot closer, so it's less bulky and less material overall. The
issue I have with this is that it's difficult to mount in a repeatable
fashion - on my cameras I just have these standard adapter plates on there,
and if you align the marking on them it's pretty much in the exact same
spot every time. Cell phone holders are more awkward. But maybe it's not
worth it and I should just go for a cellphone holder as a more reasonable
solution.

Thanks for the suggestion
-Marian

Am Di., 4. Mai 2021 um 21:07 Uhr schrieb David Holland <
david.w.holland@gmail.com>:

Use a cell phone instead of a full on camera?

I mean I guess you could hang a DSLR, and lense off the scope, but do you
really need a 24+ megapixel RAW image of your oscilloscope screen?
(Obviously of the scope itself, yes, but the screen too? :-) )

Speaking of the 2246, I cobbled together a hood, with a little shelf on the
back end for one out of some sheets of plastic, and plopped a point & shoot
camera on it. It hooked on that slot you're talking about. It worked
"adequately" allowing for the light leakage, and the need to turn down
intensity, and illumination knobs.

David


On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Daniel Koller via groups.io <kaboomdk=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hmmmm.... The older scopes, well, no, all of them, also had to deal
with fairly large lateral forces as you pulled the little white tab and
then the big yellow tab to process the film on the old Polaroid pack film
cameras they used. So they had to hold more than just the weight on the
camera.
On the other hand, that was when the scopes were new, and the plastic was
not "aged" for 40-50 years!! So the actual weight of the camera may be a
red herring. The real question is how "lucky" do you feel about
hanging a
modern SLR on there. I don't think I'd have any problem hanging a canon
digital point and shoot, but my 2 lb Nikon D750 with a macro lens (2 more
lbs), no way.
Maybe it would be better to run a long nylon strap to a rubber-coated
metal hook that loops around the back of the instrument, and use that to
support the weight of the camera, rather than relying on the plastic rim
of
a hard-to-find faceplate.
Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:06:59 PM EDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de

wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the
center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian


















 

Hi Martin,
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an ex-Tek employee who worked on probes.
Among other things I asked how they decided on the wire they used for the probes.
I thought it would be nice if it was thinner or more flexible. His answer stunned me.
He said they did a little field research where their scopes were used to find out why some probes broke more often than others.
What they saw was the engineers pulling the scopes on the scope carts by their probe leads.
For a long time after that scope probes had to pass that test.

--
Dennis Tillman W7pF
TekScopes Moderator


Daniel Koller
 

BTW, there *IS* a source of pack film out there.  See: https://supersense.com/oneinstant/There are multiple problems with it for our purposes.  1) It is hand made, so it's a bit quirky.2) It's made from an existing albeit large roll of surplus film, and when that base material runs out, that is the end of it.3) It's slow, ISO 100, and it's color.  This is not the 3000 ASA B&W film we used to shoot scope traces at 1uS/cm.4) It's expensive, and takes a long time to get. In sum, this is art film, not tech film.  Nifty, but not really all that useful.  But it exists.
For SX type "one step" cameras, there is once again an adequate supply of film.  The Impossible Project was successful in developing a new manufacturing process for that type of film, using some of the old equipment from the Netherlands.  It eventually acquired the Polaroid name, and so now "Polaroid" is literally making instant film again.  It's not just a trademark.  It might be fun to adapt one of these cameras, except again, it's color film, and it's slow.
Also BTW, I have been slowly "piecing together" the necessary parts to adapt a Canon A720 camera to a scope.  I recently successfully printed a plastic "bayonet mount" for this camera.  That should allow me to mount the thing securely and parallel to the screen.  I plan on using something like  CHDK for writing a script to control the camera in a manner suitable to taking scope photos.  CHDK is a great tool for these cheaper cameras that do not natively have full manual controls.  It would be relatively easy to write the code that either accepts a "trigger out" from the scope, or generates a trigger when the shutter is pressed.  
  Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 04:21:17 PM EDT, Dennis Tillman W7pF <dennis@ridesoft.com> wrote:

Hi Martin,
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an ex-Tek employee who worked on probes.
Among other things I asked how they decided on the wire they used for the probes.
I thought it would be nice if it was thinner or more flexible. His answer stunned me.
He said they did a little field research where their scopes were used to find out why some probes broke more often than others.
What they saw was the engineers pulling the scopes on the scope carts by their probe leads.
For a long time after that scope probes had to pass that test.

--
Dennis Tillman W7pF
TekScopes Moderator


Dave Seiter
 

That's jaw dropping!  Was era was that?  I hope it was portables and not 555s!  Neither would be wise, of course.  On the other hand, I frequently pull plugs out of the wall by yanking on the cord, instead of pulling on the plug.  Laziness, I guess.
-Dave

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:21:18 PM PDT, Dennis Tillman W7pF <dennis@ridesoft.com> wrote:

Hi Martin,
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an ex-Tek employee who worked on probes.
Among other things I asked how they decided on the wire they used for the probes.
I thought it would be nice if it was thinner or more flexible. His answer stunned me.
He said they did a little field research where their scopes were used to find out why some probes broke more often than others.
What they saw was the engineers pulling the scopes on the scope carts by their probe leads.
For a long time after that scope probes had to pass that test.

--
Dennis Tillman W7pF
TekScopes Moderator


Dave Seiter
 

I was wondering what the status of the Impossible Project was; hadn't heard anything about them in a long time.
-Dave

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:42:16 PM PDT, Daniel Koller via groups.io <kaboomdk=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

BTW, there *IS* a source of pack film out there.  See: https://supersense.com/oneinstant/There are multiple problems with it for our purposes.  1) It is hand made, so it's a bit quirky.2) It's made from an existing albeit large roll of surplus film, and when that base material runs out, that is the end of it.3) It's slow, ISO 100, and it's color.  This is not the 3000 ASA B&W film we used to shoot scope traces at 1uS/cm.4) It's expensive, and takes a long time to get. In sum, this is art film, not tech film.  Nifty, but not really all that useful.  But it exists.
For SX type "one step" cameras, there is once again an adequate supply of film.  The Impossible Project was successful in developing a new manufacturing process for that type of film, using some of the old equipment from the Netherlands.  It eventually acquired the Polaroid name, and so now "Polaroid" is literally making instant film again.  It's not just a trademark.  It might be fun to adapt one of these cameras, except again, it's color film, and it's slow.
Also BTW, I have been slowly "piecing together" the necessary parts to adapt a Canon A720 camera to a scope.  I recently successfully printed a plastic "bayonet mount" for this camera.  That should allow me to mount the thing securely and parallel to the screen.  I plan on using something like  CHDK for writing a script to control the camera in a manner suitable to taking scope photos.  CHDK is a great tool for these cheaper cameras that do not natively have full manual controls.  It would be relatively easy to write the code that either accepts a "trigger out" from the scope, or generates a trigger when the shutter is pressed.  
  Dan



    On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 04:21:17 PM EDT, Dennis Tillman W7pF <dennis@ridesoft.com> wrote:

Hi Martin,
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an ex-Tek employee who worked on probes.
Among other things I asked how they decided on the wire they used for the probes.
I thought it would be nice if it was thinner or more flexible. His answer stunned me.
He said they did a little field research where their scopes were used to find out why some probes broke more often than others.
What they saw was the engineers pulling the scopes on the scope carts by their probe leads.
For a long time after that scope probes had to pass that test.

--
Dennis Tillman W7pF
TekScopes Moderator


-
 

FWIW I have successfully used an inexpensive digital camera to
photograph scope traces (on a HP 1727A scope IIRC). I sat the camera up on
a box directly in front of the CRT and used a shutter release to trip the
shutter. I also had to manually set the exposure time (1/60s IIRC) on the
camera so that I could capture the entire sweep. I do have old Tek and HP
scope cameras in my pile of junk and I briefly considered modifying one of
the HP ones to attach to a digital camera but the camera-on-box worked well
enough so I never did. I guess it all depends on how GOOD you need your
pictures to be.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:27 PM greenboxmaven via groups.io <ka2ivy=
verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:

Because the beam on the scope is moving, an electronic camera might not
record the image as well as photography would. The Polaroid black and
white film was very fast, and they also made some types that were
optimized for scope recording. An Instax Wide camera would be an
interesting one to adapt, the print would be somewhat smaller than the
original Polaroid. Shutterbugs everywhere are pressuring and praying
someone to begin producing Polaroid pack film again, it is regarded as a
unique and desirable artistic medium. When Fuji said they were stopping
production of their replacement for Polaroid pack film because it was
not selling well enough, others approached them about buying the
equipment so they could continue producing the film themselves. Fuji
refused, and photographers have not been kind to them for doing so. Film
photography is growing, and the choices of film are as well. Guess which
brand has lost buyers.

Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY



On 5/4/21 15:07, David Holland wrote:
Use a cell phone instead of a full on camera?

I mean I guess you could hang a DSLR, and lense off the scope, but do you
really need a 24+ megapixel RAW image of your oscilloscope screen?
(Obviously of the scope itself, yes, but the screen too? :-) )

Speaking of the 2246, I cobbled together a hood, with a little shelf on
the
back end for one out of some sheets of plastic, and plopped a point &
shoot
camera on it. It hooked on that slot you're talking about. It worked
"adequately" allowing for the light leakage, and the need to turn down
intensity, and illumination knobs.

David


On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Daniel Koller via groups.io <kaboomdk=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hmmmm.... The older scopes, well, no, all of them, also had to deal
with fairly large lateral forces as you pulled the little white tab and
then the big yellow tab to process the film on the old Polaroid pack
film
cameras they used. So they had to hold more than just the weight on
the
camera.
On the other hand, that was when the scopes were new, and the plastic
was
not "aged" for 40-50 years!! So the actual weight of the camera may be
a
red herring. The real question is how "lucky" do you feel about
hanging a
modern SLR on there. I don't think I'd have any problem hanging a canon
digital point and shoot, but my 2 lb Nikon D750 with a macro lens (2
more
lbs), no way.
Maybe it would be better to run a long nylon strap to a rubber-coated
metal hook that loops around the back of the instrument, and use that to
support the weight of the camera, rather than relying on the plastic
rim of
a hard-to-find faceplate.
Dan

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:06:59 PM EDT, Marian B <
public@enkore.de>
wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a
proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo
I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the
center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian

















greenboxmaven
 

If this was true, it's actually a realistic test. As I have said before, not all Tektronix gear was used in a lab or ordered environment. When an engineer at a TV station was behind a rack of equipment, trying to find an intermittent problem, with a supervisor breathing down their neck, and the station manager pokes their head around the corner to deliver additional "motivation", the engineer is likely to flinch. If the test lead from the scope is near it's full length, the harried engineer is quite capable of yanking on it out of fright and a "What the @#$%! are they going to do to me NOW!" startle. Amplify this ten times over for an elevator or indutrial control technician. If the probe and lead stay intact and operational, the engineer is likely to have their loyalty to Tektronix greatly enhanced. As for power cords, if circumstances demand and the cord has a good molded on plug, pulling it out occasionally with a gently increasing force is unlikely to damage anything.  It's the real world, after all!

   Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY

On 5/4/21 18:35, Dave Seiter wrote:
That's jaw dropping!  Was era was that?  I hope it was portables and not 555s!  Neither would be wise, of course.  On the other hand, I frequently pull plugs out of the wall by yanking on the cord, instead of pulling on the plug.  Laziness, I guess.
-Dave
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 01:21:18 PM PDT, Dennis Tillman W7pF <dennis@ridesoft.com> wrote:
Hi Martin,
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an ex-Tek employee who worked on probes.
Among other things I asked how they decided on the wire they used for the probes.
I thought it would be nice if it was thinner or more flexible. His answer stunned me.
He said they did a little field research where their scopes were used to find out why some probes broke more often than others.
What they saw was the engineers pulling the scopes on the scope carts by their probe leads.
For a long time after that scope probes had to pass that test.


greenboxmaven
 

The Impossible Project, now owners of  Polaroid, are very much in business and are selling plenty film for the newer cameras, as well as refurbished SX-70 cameras themselves and others. They receive a constant deluge of inquiries and requests to resume making pack film or provide a viable replacement. There was a company called Cat Labs that put a good deal of effort into it, but concluded it was not practical. Oddly, the chemistry is not said to be the issue. The construction of the cartridges and assembling the negative, pods, and positive papers reliably and assembling the cartridge in the dark is the big hurdle. What I can't approve of is Polaroid and Fuji wrecking the equipment so no one else can make a product (covered by long expired patents) they don't want to bother with anymore. I don't expect the demand and requests for pack film to go away, there is too much equipment around that uses it, and the artisic merit of the film both b&w and color is great and essentially irreplaceable. Don't throw away good quality VHS camcorders or Tektronix analog monitors. There are fim makers who are increasingly interested in the ambiance of modest quality video.

   Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY

On 5/4/21 18:38, Dave Seiter wrote:
I was wondering what the status of the Impossible Project was; hadn't heard anything about them in a long time.
-Dave


stevenhorii
 

There were camera bezel attachments for the various Tek scopes. I bought a
7704A that had a camera bezel on it (but no camera). My recollection (that
7704A went off at a hamfest years ago) is that the camera bezel was metal
and had a hinge where the camera would attach. The camera could be swung
out of the way for observation and swung in and latched for photos. The
7704A has grooves on the sides of the standard bezel into which the camera
bezel slid. This is all from memory which may be a little "dusty". This
arrangement to me suggests that the bezel on a 7704A can take quite a bit
of weight.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:16 PM Dave Seiter <d.seiter@att.net> wrote:

Marion,
I just put a c-53 on my shipping scale; it's 5lbs, 11oz. Center of mass
feels like it's about in the middle, so about 4.5"?
-Dave
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 10:06:49 AM PDT, Marian B <public@enkore.de>
wrote:

Hello TekScopes!

I've been finally getting around to making (or planning, anyway) a proper
camera mount for my Tek scopes. My main concern is if it's mechanically
O.K. to hang a camera on the front of my 7000-class ships (not
boat-anchors).

At the closest I can get to the CRT with my current camera + lens combo I
would end up hanging ~1.3 kg (2.9 lbs) onto the faceplate, with the center
of mass being ~24 cm (~10 in) in front of the scope. This seems awfully
heavy to me with a lot of leverage.

I searched for the weight of the C-50/51/52/53 series cameras which were
meant to go on these scopes, but didn't find it in the manuals. How do
these compare, mass and center of mass wise?

(I also own a 2246, but the attachment slot is out of thin plastic on
those, so I doubt hanging anything other than a hood on that is a good
idea)

Cheers, Marian