Independant Recreation of Hoagland's work: +1 more Moon Anomaly

Being a graphic design person doesn't neccessarily prepare someone for working with film, though it's good ground work perhaps. I'm not sure on your experience.

However, there's things like film grain to take into account, and maths too. I might be patronising here, but if you take a basic image that isn't floating point with HDR data and increase the brightness 50% and follow it with an increase in contrast you're destroying values.

Unless your system compensates for it ... If you're working with a 16 bit image (0-1) and make two dramatic adjustments one after the other ... to put it in maths terms ...

Apply a brightness of 2.0, followed by a brightness adjustment of 0.5 and you've just clipped anything above mid-tone brightness to grey.

I haven't looked indepth at Hoagland's work honestly, but generally with 'forensic' image manip the goal is to use as few operations as possible to interrogate the data and to maintain data integrity at all times.

Edit note: Increasing contrast is going to make things even worse, since you're increase difference between two values. Therefore, a piece of grain and some blackish space will suddenly become incredibly contrasted visible pixels. Instead of being actual demonstrations of reality or what was you're just looking at some very angry grain!

reply to post by Pinke


its important to understand that transparencies NOT film were produced originally.

reply to post by knightsofcydonia

I'm not sure what you mean or what difference it would make. Transparencies (slides) are photographic film.

The 3rd photo, with the bluish thing in the middle, it looks like a "Virgin Mary" to me.
I'm not a "Virgin Mary" believer, but that shape/image looked like it to me.

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
reply to post by Pinke

 

its important to understand that transparencies NOT film were produced originally.

The person was working with a digital image. Everything I've said stands as far as I can see.

Unless the person is going back to the original negatives they're not going to find anything in an 8 bit image without HDR data.

reply to post by Pinke

Digital scans from prints (of an unknown number of generations).
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


What your looking at but cant see in the photos are several dome structures..the simplest explanation is that they are made of glass (silicon Dioxide) its also what the earth is made of. How do we make glass? we basically take the most common elements of the earths crust, heat them up, refine them, melt down, put on big steel plates w/rollers etc.. and you've got sheets of glass.. SO it turns out the lunar ruins are made out of the most common materials found on the moon.
On the moon Glass is a structural material!!!! when used to build its 20x's stronger than steel. The reason for this is mainly no water on the moon also there are no impurities to make it weak or brittle..(no atmostphere)

If you dope it in various minerals you can make it photochromic, radiation resistant, semi transparent so only specific wavelengths can penetrate.
Sinus Medii is spot aka "middle bay" where you can look up and see earth perfectly, a perfect view of earth.. also the FIRST ruins were discovered in this location..

JFK was killed over this stuff imo.

reply to post by knightsofcydonia

No. What we are looking at is photographic flaws.

You can look up and see Earth perfectly from just about anywhere on the Moon (except on the far side, and depending on the time of "day"), just as you can look up and see the Moon perfectly from anywhere on Earth.

reply to post by Phage

apollo 10
as1032-4810 turn up the gain...

these are NOT photographic flaws.please back up your statements...This is stunning gridwork in the sky that does not belong.there is no doubt in anyones mind, who has anything to do with construction (much less someone who has even built a house) that can see the rectilinear stream work and girders are present.(left and rights cross sections as well)

ITS NOT: Scratches or weirdness in the chemistry bath in developing of film

ITS IS: REAL 3D MANUFACTURED STUFF!

as for transparencies/film they are NOT the same...

- Unlike negative film, slide film produces an image which has the actual colours of the scene you photographed

-- The contrast range of slide film is narrower than negative film

-- Because of the above, more care has to be taken in exposure

-- Slide films are best viewed projected on a wall or screen

-- You can make prints from slides, but the contrast range issue makes it tricky

-- If you want to make prints, negative film is the better choice

-- The images you see in National Geographic are slide film images (though digital is creeping in)

-- Fine grain slide films like Velvia have the best resolution of all colour films

There's no real answer to the "which is better" question -- it depends on what you want to do with the images.

As for a camera being "better with slide film", I don't really understand.

Better FOR slide film may mean the camera has finer exposure adjustments. But any camera that can take negatives can take slides.

reply to post by knightsofcydonia

You mean this image?
history.nasa.gov...

If by "turning up the gain" you mean increasing brightness and contrast this is what you get:
files.abovetopsecret.com...
I see scratches, smudges, scanning artifacts and jpeg artifacts. I don't see any rectilinear stream work (whatever that is).