apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 




Look here for a great flag explanation.

www.youtube.com.../u/3/GbJvgqoeFSU

[edit on 16-1-2010 by wmd_2008]




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by theflashor
How many estimated stars are there?

And how many are in them pictures. Yup zero! None what so ever ! The pictures are blatently faked! how can you explain no stars in space?


Just love that question because it always proves you guys have know idea about photography and how it works

Surface of Moon is lit by the sun so exposures are the same as a very bright summers day on Earth.
Small f no set on lens so very large depth of field every thing from a few feet in front of astronaut to infinity would be in focus.
The usual no stars question as exposure is set for BRIGHT sunlight stars wont show plain and simple. If you dont think thats true at night set your camera on manual set exposure settings for a day light pic photograph a dark patch of sky see what shows up.
Now with same settings point at the Moon take a picture of it see what happens.

Here is a good starting place re astrophotography

www.kodak.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by theflashor
How many estimated stars are there?

And how many are in them pictures. Yup zero! None what so ever ! The pictures are blatently faked! how can you explain no stars in space?


Just love that question because it always proves you guys have know idea about photography and how it works
...

Exactly.

It was very bight and relfective on the Moon, so the camera settings (i.e., shutters speeds) were set to something like the shutter speeds used when taking a day-time/day-lit picture on Earth.

If a person on Earth uses a camera with shutter speeds equal to those used in day-lit pictures, and tried to take a picture of stars at night -- even on the darkest and starriest of nights here on Earth -- then NO stars or planets (except perhaps the very, very bright ones, such as Venus) would show up on that picture.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by aspx
 


Well telescopes are designed to gather LIGHT thats more important than magnification.

IIRC max magnification for Hubble is about 5000x distance to moon on average 238,857 miles divide by 5000 = 47.7 miles
So moon would still look 47.7 miles away a lander is about 15 foot across from
47.7 miles away how big would it look

It has been worked out the smallest object the Hubble could resolve on the moon would be about just under 300ft across does that answer your question.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 16-1-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by captiva
...No light meter mentioned as having went to the moon. Without one chances of those photographs being as they are are becoming more miraculous by the minute....

Respects


Would not need a light meter you are talking BS mate film when we used it
had a little instruction sheet with it which gave camera settings for specific lighting situations
ie over cast ,sunny,shade etc now as we know the Moon is lit by direct sunlight everything could be preset to get a descent exposure so anyone with a little knowledge could do this and would know this.

So if you ARE a photographer even you should have thought about this.


The instructions for the Apollo astronauts were printed on the back of the film magazines.
sterileeye.files.wordpress.com...

Lighting conditions on the Moon are not as varied as here on Earth.

[edit on 1/16/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Some Russian guy did some photo analysis of Moon landing and presents his work here


Photos



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shakespear1
Some Russian guy did some photo analysis of Moon landing and presents his work here


Photos


A couple of problems with his parrallax pictures Hassblad astronauts used is medium format camera was the camera used to take women and baby shots the same format.
Displacement on astronauts pics more horizontal /woman and baby more vertical distance from camera to astronauts different than woman and baby.
They will also be differences caused by the focal length of the lens on each camera and if the film format is different.

This link shows how focal length can effect the perspective look at
400mm and 2oomm lens shots on this page taken from same position look how the position of CN Tower chages in position due to the focal lentgh change so I dont agree with his results.

www.luminous-landscape.com...

He would need a Hasselblad with same lens as astronauts with objects set up same way to prove his point.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by shakespear1
 


Thanks for the link.

The flat horizon is an interesting question.


Thanks wmd_2008 to wake up this thread

[edit on 17-1-2010 by mixmix]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by shakespear1
Some Russian guy did some photo analysis of Moon landing and presents his work here


Photos



From the Link
The photographs were used in new large-format 500-mm camera...


He misunderstood. The Apollo 15 (and 16 & 17) astronauts had the same type of Hasselblad 70mm-film cameras as the previous missions. However, in addition to the 80mm-focal-length Zeiss-Biogon lense (which was detachable), these missions also carried a longer lense that, when attathed, gave a focal length of 500mm. This enabled them to take telephoto pictures of small features on the distant mountains.

None of the images that he shows in his analysis were taken with the 500mm lense. All of images he shows were taken with the Zeiss-Biogon lense. It should be pointed-out that this wide-angle lense caused some distortion near the edges of the frame, and I can speak from personal experience that this can skew interpretation of parallax.

Beyond that, I'd have to crunch some numbers on his range estimates. I also think we should try some photographic tests on features at comparable ranges (assuming my 2-year old gives me the time...
)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
posted in error
edit on 30-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
32
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join