So you tell us - you're making the claim, how big would the actual sun disk be, if properly resolved?
Originally posted by bochen181
Here is APollo 12 landing site panaroma
the pictures taken below were at :
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Film Width: 70 mm
You tell me if the sun is too big or too small.
Don't you know??? And is there any
reason to suspect that you should be able to detect the true size of the Sun's disk in such overexposed images?
For heaven's sake, try taking
an earthbound photo at the same settings, and see how that all works for you, okay?
Someone's gotta say it. There has been a vast volume of error-ridden information posted here by the OP, and all of it demonstrates s/he hasn't the
slightest bit of experience whatsoever in photography, let alone a basic understanding of light and shadow. Didn't even know the difference between
zoom/focal length and focus???? Save me.
Anyway, just to pick on this post alone, what on earth is the purpose of comparing a panorama that does not include the sun in shot, to an image where
the sun is COMPLETELY overexposed and blown to smithereens
? Does he even know what 'blown' means, or what lens flare is? What point is he
trying to make? Of course you can't tell what the size of the sun is by looking at an overexposed, flared out blob
. (Ironically, as we know
the lens focal length, we can indeed calculate what the actual size of the sun would be on that film frame, but of course that is a meaningless number
in the context of this ridiculous rant - the solar disk cannot possibly be resolved at that exposure level
. You would need MANY MANY stops of
underexposure, probably with the help of an ND filter or similar.
Try this at home, folks, using the same exposure settings, and see what you get. Can you get anywhere near the correct size of the solar disk?
(Don't point cameras at the Sun for more than a very short time, by the way..) Hint - it's easy back here on earth to see how big the solar disk
should be, for a given camera and lens setting. Just go out at night and take a photo of the MOON, and compare it. But to do that properly you must
use daylight exposure settings (and preferably manual focus set to infinity), or the Moon too will be blown out - it's BRIGHT. If you can't see any
lunar details, then keep at it until you do. I'm happy to help with specific instructions if you tell me what camera you have.
Alternatively, go to your nearest hardware store and grab a grade 12 welders filter, and shoot through that.
All that will, of course, fly straight over the OP's head, I'm guessing..
To the guy/gal who had/has a Hass with a similar lens, why don't you show us what you get doing the same thing here on earth - same exposure
settings, similar film, similar lens? Because without a very similar camera and lens, any uneducated guesses - especially made by those without a
shred of photographic experience and zero supporting information - are completely worthless.
What a waste of bandwidth. But, OP, I'm sure you have given the NASA folk a good belly laugh, if you actually did lodge an FOI request (which,
frankly, I doubt, but do post your receipts and proof..)
PS - In the OP, you will see that he claims a huge spotlight was used. Small problem. If that was the case, then every Apollo image would show a
VERY OBVIOUS penumbra on every shadow. Go check the original film scans, and see if you can find any image whatsoever that shows penumbra. (The OP
will now madly google penumbra..) The hotspots he incorrectly attributes to the 'very large light source' are caused by heiligenschein. The fact
that he didn't understand his large light would actually cause penumbral effects is another indication of how incredibly little the OP knows about
PPS - The OP seems to think that a 70mm Hasselblad has a 70mm lens (it can, actually) - but the 70mm refers to the FILM FORMAT. He did get the right
focal length for the lens used for those Apollo images (namely 60mm), but on the Shuttle and ISS, many different focal length lenses have been used -
it's an interchangeable lens camera
. If he cared to identify the 'comparative' images, we could tell him what lens was used for every one.
Not that it would help his case - as pointed out laboriously, the fact the images are blown to all hell, means you cannot imply anything about the
size of the Sun.
[edit on 16-3-2010 by CHRLZ]