Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am probably going to hate my self for posting this
...I came across two images which contain what appears to be a big honking search light (light source?) among Apollo 11 EVA training photos.
It may have been covered before but since "sets" and "lighting" were recently discussed, I felt it relevant.
CHRLZ please don't tase me bro.
No, it is not.
Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Whilst I agree on some of it the main point is incorrect.
This is correct.
So if I look at his helmet face full on you will see in the reflection both sides of my face but if I'm looking at an angle it cannot possibly show both sides of the face as it can't see them.
This is correct.
So what we have in the photo is a man standing at an angle that is not straight on to the visor
This is INCORRECT.
and since his camera has to be pointed at the visor
Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
the camera is chest mounted, therefore the photographer MUST be facing directly at the TRIPOD
Originally posted by webpirate
Yeah, and it seems to be the wrong angle too if the camera is mounted on his chest....very weird. Nice find
Originally posted by ppk55
Only 2 people landed on moon via Apollo 17.....
Their cameras were chest mounted, fixed, no viewfinder Hassleblad cameras.
So if the guy in the vest (in the reflection) was looking straight ahead, who took the photo ?
Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
I think this will help. Is it self explanatory or does it need commentary?
Originally posted by DavidDCSA
There were several fixed camera mounts on the lander. It really amazes me sometimes.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55
You can see his backpack look at his shadow in the helmet reflection!!!
Looks like something on his chest as well look at shadow!!
Hardluck guys Photography is a blackart to some on here.
[edit on 22-4-2010 by wmd_2008]
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by oldmeatwad
You just skipped over the entire thread, didn't you? Go back and read through the whole thing. We discuss convex mirror reflections, grayscale, emulsion and scanning resolution, etc.
Must have missed it - what page?
posted on 26-4-2010 @ 02:41 AM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:
OK, my analysis begins.
I'm going to go through this very slowly, step by step, probably dragging it on (interminably) over several days. Why?
Simply to give the opportunity for anyone to add, debate or object to each step of the process. And I won't proceed until there is general agreement - although if anyone argues points without demonstrating a correct alternative approach, or who uses non-repeatable methods or cannot cite credible references.. I'm afraid I won't be taking that too seriously.
First of all, let's clarify the 'Conundrum'.
In the NASA Apollo image AS17-141-21608, taken during the Apollo 17 mission on a Hasselblad 70mm still film camera fitted with Zeiss Distagon 60mm lens and loaded with Kodak 3401 Plus-XX black and white film, there is (according to Nasa) a reflection in astronaut Eugene A. Cernan's visor showing Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who took the photo. The reflection *appears* to show Schmitt angled away somewhat from the scene, and does not clearly show his PLSS (backpack) - although the shadow does appear to show a backpack.
The full image is linked here as a high resolution film scan:
The area in question is near the top left. That is the highest resolution scan found to date.
Here is the area in question, at ACTUAL pixel size:
Here it is again, enlarged using no interpolation, showing the actual scanned pixels clearly:
1. Any other enlargements shown on this thread that do NOT have this pixelated quality, have been generated by software that uses interpolation routines. Interpolation, by definition, means that the program has 'guessed' the added pixels, and smoothed out the image. Such added detail is NOT valid data, and cannot be used for valid image analysis or forensics.
The ONLY way to extract more detail from the original film image would be to rescan it at higher resolution. However, the image is already showing film grain along with blurring, either from a focus error, camera movement, or lens aberrations. So it is most unlikely that rescanning at a higher resolution would add any useful information.
2. The reflected astronaut figure is quite unclear and appears to be approximately 55-59 pixels high (more about this later) and 17-22 pixels wide. It is not possible to clearly resolve or identify details on the astronaut that would be below aproximately 3-4" (75-100mm) actual size.
3. It is evident that parts of the astronaut are at or below the same brightness level as the background lunar regolith.
The regolith has greyscale values of approximately 110-120, but reaches >150 in some places.
The astronaut's greyscale values range from ~70 (shadowed areas of legs/boot) up to ~180 (sunlit helmet).
Thus endeth part 1. To be continued...
Informed and educated comments, and constructive criticism most welcome. I'm most happy to be corrected by those better informed than me.