It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why no stars in space pictures?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by wmd_2008
you would have noticed things like STAR TRAILS which to anyone with actual knowlege on the subject would would mean an exposure time of at least a few seconds!!!


I did not comment on exposure time.

The OP did not specify or request images with a certain exposure time.





No he did not ask exposure times BUT he asked why no stars and the reason for that is EXPOSURE time which you know very well!!!!!!!!!!!
I have noticed a trend with yourself.zorgon & and sometimes Mike that if anyone posts anything which disrupts your little world misleading replies are posted to confuse the issue!




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This piece was in the Guardian today. Apollo Through the Astronauts Eyes.

www.guardian.co.uk...

On slide 3 it says:




Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong on the moon Buzz Aldrin: 'Nothing prepared me for the starkness of the moon. The barren terrain was a dusty grey with many little craters in every direction. The sky was utter blackness, void of any stars. When I stepped down onto the surface and felt each movement carried by the slow-motion sensation of one-sixth lunar gravity, I spontaneously exclaimed, 'Magnificent desolation.' As I walked away from the Eagle lunar module, Neil said: 'Hold it, Buzz.' So I stopped and turned around, and then took what has become known as the 'Visor' photo.'


What would have accounted for the astronauts failure to see stars with their eyes on the moon?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ruggedtoast
 


Ever try to see stars while standing on the 50 yard line under friday night lights? You won't see much. Our daytime vision, powered by our cones, is not nearly as sensitive to light as our night vision, which is powered by our rods. Furthermore, your iris is constricted when you just got done looking down at the bright daylit lunar terrain.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That makes sense, thanks.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Ok, time for a professional opinion to reinforce those here who understand whats going on...and set it straight for those who do not.

When you take a daylight photo here on earth, the exposure time is very, very, very short. For film especially. Now realize this, during the day light is not just coming from the sun, but also being reflected as ambient light in the atmosphere. Meaning, day time on earth is much brighter than day time in space. It is POSSIBLE, but RARE, to see stars in the day. Usually extremely bright ones (or planets reflecting sunlight) in the mornings/evenings, but sometimes otherwise.

Now, when you go into space the ball game changes. There is reflected light in orbit, from the Earth's surface itself; its a directional light. Not ambient. Yes it is reflected but not within itself, what is seen from space is the light that Earth is losing. Now, since it is very bright but only directional, it is ENTIRELY possible to catch some of the BRIGHTEST heavenly bodies DIMLY on a short exposure.

Add onto that, the fact that there is no atmosphere to dim said stars, just one to three VERY bright objects instead that overwhelm the exposure (either earth/shuttle/sun, or moon/ship/sun, etc). Meaning you will not get the faint stars in a day time exposure that has a greater proportion of reflective surfaces (IE: atmosphere).

Now, with longer exposures you will still not see ALL the stars, you will only see brighter ones and some of the fainter ones...but not ALL...because you still have the light from other nearby objects.

In response to the shuttle images of stars: They are on the night side, but night is not truly 'dark'. As you expose the film the light builds up. It doesn't capture it 'as is', it intensifies. I can take something simple like a flash light, and make it 'glow like the sun' on film simply by longer exposures. The stars will show up as streaks if the camera is not aligned, and the planet will appear on a 'day' view but a bit blurry.

Since the atmosphere is almost uniform (enough at a distance to look uniformed), the image will ghost the layers exposed. Meaning, the atmosphere you see in those images is so clear because its ALL (lets say 10 seconds?) the exposed time. Imagine trying to view 10 seconds of a movie, in one image.

10x32fps=320 pictures overlayed as one image.

This is why the stars streak, this is why things seem 'brighter' or 'clearer' or 'blurry' for whatever their case may be due to conditions.

Which brings us back to why we do not ALWAYS see stars in film/footage/shots in space.

The exposures are to short to fully capture them, but are capable of SOMETIMES catching others. As each situation can vary and there is no garunteed 'standard' to this, then you will never have a photo or footage that is the same entirely.

Meaning you can NOT go and say "this photo has black, this one has stars." Because they may have been different cameras, they might of been held at an odd angle, their exposure may change, their film may be different, their processing decisions may of been changed between each one, etc.

And, also; On stills, some of them have been burned and some of them may have been exposed in certain spots more.

If you do not know anything about traditional photography, then know this: Professionals can edit their photos without photoshop or any manipulation to a negative. A simple wire with cardboard can be sufficient enough to darkened an area, and a cardboard sheet with a small hole, can be enough to brighten an area.

If I wanted to make all the stars 2x brighter, but keep the rest the same...then I would simple use the hole in cardboard method to expose the light in photo printing on just the star field and nothing else...

That is with traditional printing...

Short point being: There are so many variables and explanations as to why stars can be seen or can not be seen at any given photo, there is no argument to be had.

Enjoy



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I think the question has been answered in so many different ways.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Thank You slayer!

That picture clearly demonstrates that which some would say is impossible...


jra

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
That picture clearly demonstrates that which some would say is impossible


And what's that exactly?

Here is a high res copy of AS14-66-9232. Now take a look at the photos that come before and after. AS14-66-9231, AS14-66-9233. The blue dots are not there.

I also loaded up Stellarium and set the location to the Apollo 14 landing site and set the date to Feb 5, 1971. I don't see any significantly bright stars when looking westward.

However, Venus, being the 3rd brightest object in the Lunar sky was spotted in some Apollo 14 photos in another thread in a different forum (scroll down to a post made by "Data Cable") and also discussed on BAUT and it only shows up in B&W photos due to B&W film being more light sensitive than colour film.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Actually check your own data they are there. The first one is the one I used I have the high rez uploaded the second is a slight different angle and is up closer. The second one I see two maybe three faint stars. Could be the difference in monitors? I see um just fine. The third is also closer if you look to the far right you see a star. "Blue" dot as you call it so in your own "Proof" three of the three show stars
look far right



[edit on 2-6-2009 by SLAYER69]


jra

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I opened the images in photoshop and scaled 9231 to match 9232 and put it over top of the other. The three "stars" in 9232 should still appear in 9231 even with the slight change in position, but they do not. I don't see anything at all in 9231 that could be mistaken for a star period. In 9233 I only see one fuzzy blue dot (and I increased the brightness and contrast in the image to make sure it wasn't just my monitor). And that "star" in 9233 doesn't match up with any of the three in 9232.

This leads me to believe that these are nothing more that defects on the film or something that happened during the developing of the film and not something that was actually there. Due to the fact that these fuzzy dots do not appear in consecutive shots.

If you still believe they are stars. Then please tell me which ones they are as I can not identify them, even with the help of Stellarium.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I think the question has been answered in so many different ways.

Other high resolution scans of 9232 do not show those "stars":
grin.hq.nasa.gov...
It's a scanning artifact.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That one obviously shows artifacts.

I honestly chalk up the discrepancies to blind luck. Some footage had better exposure times while others did not. But if they are going to show artifacts then they would be very obvious like the link you just posted. While others will show some faint stars. I don't get the argument here. No two pictures are ever exactly alike.

Those picture were originally "optimized" To show the Astronaut and the Flag not the stars in the background. I think we were lucky enough to have some faint images of stars captured.

Anybody here can take a photo now a days into photoshop and over expose an image to expose items too faint to normally be observed. So having a differences in scans leaves too many possibilities open in my opinion. Considering the equipment of the period although top of the line back in the day. Still by today's standards left a lot to be desired.

So in the End you see no "stars" and "Artifacts" in some of the images. I see "Artifacts" and "stars" in some.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That one obviously shows artifacts.

I honestly chalk up the discrepancies to blind luck. Some footage had better exposure times while others did not. But if they are going to show artifacts then they would be very obvious like the link you just posted. While others will show some faint stars. I don't get the argument here. No two pictures are ever exactly alike.

Those picture were originally "optimized" To show the Astronaut and the Flag not the stars in the background. I think we were lucky enough to have some faint images of stars captured.

Anybody here can take a photo now a days into photoshop and over expose an image to expose items too faint to normally be observed. So having a differences in scans leaves too many possibilities open in my opinion. Considering the equipment of the period although top of the line back in the day. Still by today's standards left a lot to be desired.

So in the End you see no "stars" and "Artifacts" in some of the images. I see "Artifacts" and "stars" in some.





The thing is to picture the astronauts correctly only needs a fraction of a second or indeed to photograph the moon from earth only takes a fraction of a second so even putting such a picture into photoshop wont help bring out stars that take a few seconds to register on film or digital at the film speed settings the astronauts used. A link I provided earlier showed the moon at 200asa equiv film speed at f9 still only taking 1/320th of a second pictured from earth. 200asa its not a fast film speed f9 is a small aperture and 1/320th is a quick shutter speed and people still question why stars dont show!(Well people who no NOTHING about photogarphy)



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That one obviously shows artifacts.

No, it doesn't. It shows that 9232 had no stars.


I honestly chalk up the discrepancies to blind luck. Some footage had better exposure times while others did not.

It's THE SAME PICTURE just a different scan of the original.


But if they are going to show artifacts then they would be very obvious like the link you just posted.

There's no artifacts there aside from the normal jpg compression and dark noise of the scanner itself!

I don't get the argument here. No two pictures are ever exactly alike.

Short daylight exposures won't show stars. Period. This photo doesn't show stars. Period. Some scans of this photo will have different scanner artifacts than others, but there are no stars here or else it would be consistently there.


Those picture were originally "optimized" To show the Astronaut and the Flag not the stars in the background.

This was a scan of a piece of film, not an original digital image. There's no screwing with the dynamic range here, the dynamic range is the same between the two scans.


So having a differences in scans leaves too many possibilities open in my opinion.

Wrong. It leaves only one possibility, just one. The inconsistent spots are artifacts. You toss out artifacts, you don't give them greater credence because they fail to show up in all but one scan!



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I'm sorry you feel so strongly about the picture not showing stars. GET OVER IT!

Not everybody will agree with you.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Another scan not showing "stars," but there are some artifacts not matching the ones in the other scan off to the right.
http: //www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~5~5~21589~126374:Shepard-Plants-Flag
But hey, I'm wasting my breath because you aren't going to accept any evidence, right?

[edit on 4-6-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Another scan not showing "stars," but there are some artifacts not matching the ones in the other scan off to the right.
http: //www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~5~5~21589~126374:Shepard-Plants-Flag
But hey, I'm wasting my breath because you aren't going to accept any evidence, right?

[edit on 4-6-2009 by ngchunter]



The problem with people like slayer and others on here is THE REAL TRUTH HURTS when their fantasy is showm to be just that you get the attitude like his post above.
We have even had photographers backing up what we say but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No!
The truth is that we have a difference of opinion.
I'm a big boy my feelings haven't been hurt get over it already.

Jeez grow up



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No!
The truth is that we have a difference of opinion.
I'm a big boy my feelings haven't been hurt get over it already.

Jeez grow up



No the truth is even PHOTOGRAPHERS posting here think what you say is idiotic!
Its not a difference of opinion you just dont have a clue about photography!



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
FWIW, just after midnight, now in Northern VA....Moon big and bright, high in the East/NE. Stepped out, sky seems pretty clear, and I'm darned if I can see five stars.

Not in the country, not in the big city...in-between, kinda.

Maybe all those darned sodium streetlamps. Hmmm...what color were the Astronaut's visors?

Nah, joshing. But, I have little ambient light to interfere, and just the Earth's atmosphere, and unadapted pupils....no eye protection, such as a darkened visor!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join