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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 204
377
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Both of Aldrin's feet are airborne which means he is in motion.
Armstrong is leaning back for the shot and not using a tripod.
His camera is probably attached on his chest, in other words his breathing will create motion.
His subject is in SHADOW, yet the photo also has correctly exposed the bright ground.


So... explain away. The lack of motion blur, and for being able to correctly expose for the regolith and Aldrin in the shadow.

*goes to grab the popcorn*
The camera was generally set at a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second and the aperture for that photo was set at f/5.6. At 1/250th, a slow moving person coming down a ladder is not going to blur.

They even had nifty guides stuck to the cameras to help pick the aperture to shoot at:




And what makes you think Adrin was moving slow?
How do you slow down a hop down a ladder?




posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


1/250th of a second. SHUTTER SPEED.

You don't seem to know anything about film cameras, it seems.

You had better do your homework..... :shk:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, kind hearted soul that I am, I will make your task a bit easier....

First, a pretty photo for you to enjoy:



I found this online. The photographer's notes mentioned that he shot it using a 1/250 shutter speed. Sure, it's a digital camera, not film...but, speed is speed.

Awesome, innnit???

A snowboarder, unsupported in flight, and clear and sharp as can be. Do you think Aldrin was moving that fast? In 1/6th G??? Even IF he was moving at all?????




edit on 24 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Photo, notes.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMAnd what makes you think Adrin was moving slow?
How do you slow down a hop down a ladder?
Well, among other things, you can start with 1/6th earth gravity. Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is about 1.6m/s^2. Even if you assume he was free falling (which he wouldn't be since his hands are holding on), and you assume a generous 0.25 meter drop, his maximum possible speed would have been a whopping 2 miles per hour. Or, put another way, during the 1/250th second exposure, he would have moved a maximum of 3 millimeters during the exposure.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



And what makes you think Adrin was moving slow?
How do you slow down a hop down a ladder?


Foos, I'm shooting a football (American) game tonite. As the sun sets I plan to shoot as much as I can at a shutter speed of around 1/250. How much blur should I expect from the action shots?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



To capture that person without showing any motion blur, and exposing for both the foreground and background what would you do?

What settings would you choose on your camera?


Since nobody cares about the background, I wouldn't worry about over-exposing it.


It did matter to the photographer of that photo, because the background was not over exposed.




Given that the Earth is four times wider in the lunar sky than the Moon is from Earth, and that it has a much higher albedo, I'd estimate that you're looking at a "fill light" sixteen times brighter than a full moon.


Earth's brightness would have no bearing on photo because the sun was out.
Plus it wasn't a full Earth.





At ISO 100, f/1.4, say about 1/500 of a second. Based on your experience in photography, how much motion blur would you expect to see? .


Would agree that Neil did not have the means to set his camera to those that you have stated?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It's not just shutter speed. It's also ISO and aperture that make the difference. Also it doesn't matter that it's digital vs. film since ISO values are the same.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yeah,,,,I know all that, but not sure Foos does (yet).

Trying to dumb it down for him....



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Oh ok, just making sure. Also as a point to see motion blur at that shutter speed you need speed. Something like falling down the ladders in moon gravity won't be enough.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


That's why I added that photo of the snowboarder, in midflight, in Earth's 1-G gravity ---- taken at 1/250. For Foos's benefit and edification (hopefully).

Also, found a link to a hummingbird photograph, also at 1/250 shutter speed. (Of course, there is a flash involved as well, which could skew the results....but, still......).

photo.net...

I think anyone who has ever seen a hummingbird should be suitably impressed, yes???



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So you want to come here, on a conspiracy oriented website, and state some bull that military people dont lie? Have you lost all sense of direction? You just threw your credibility out the door, son. You better hop to and go out and find it before it gets run over by a car. And once you get it back, then we can talk. After 200 pages of exposing Apollo as a dog and pony show, you better bring better material to the table in its defense.



I guess this is the nearest I can get you to actually admit that you believe every single one of the Apollo astronauts is a complete liar, and that they have maintained those lies in perfect unison for 40 years.

But if one of them suddenly stepped forward and announced that it all was a hoax, oh boy THEN you would sure as hell believe him.

Like I said, your entire basement dweller house of cards comes tumbling down as soon as we introduce the human component. I think that's the problem, you hardcore truthers only interact with others through your keyboard, you doubt human integrity because you have so little human exposure, focusing purely on negative web based stereotypes.

Sad really, I pity you, it's not much of a life to think that everyone is either a liar or an idiot, and that you're the only genius who can see "da twoof".

PS - We went to the Moon, doesn't that just amaze and astound you?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yeah,,,,I know all that, but not sure Foos does (yet).

Trying to dumb it down for him....


You dont have to dumb anything down, you have to come with better examples.
Your subject was under exposed. And the information you provided is useless for this discussion.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosMAnd what makes you think Adrin was moving slow?
How do you slow down a hop down a ladder?
Well, among other things, you can start with 1/6th earth gravity. Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is about 1.6m/s^2. Even if you assume he was free falling (which he wouldn't be since his hands are holding on), and you assume a generous 0.25 meter drop, his maximum possible speed would have been a whopping 2 miles per hour. Or, put another way, during the 1/250th second exposure, he would have moved a maximum of 3 millimeters during the exposure.


does this jive with your calculations?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Huh?



Your subject was under exposed.


"My" subject?? You mean the snowboarder?? I didn't take that, it is perfectly clear in my post...and the photographer's WEBSITE that is superimposed on the image! (For copyright protection, no doubt).

Still, attempt to deflect (once again) is noted, and will not be ignored....everyone needs to see this blatant tactic, just in case late-comers might not have noticed yet.

About the exposure setting......SO? So what? Is the image of the person on the snowboard sharp, or not?

Is he using a hoverboard, like "Marty McFly" in Back To the Future II?? No, I seriously doubt that he is.

SO....who do you think was "moving" more, when comparing the photo of the snowboarding fellow, and Astronaut "Buzz" Aldrin? OR, who was moving at a faster velocity, at the moment of shutter release?

Need I also point out the hummingbird pic, in the follow-on link?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosMAnd what makes you think Adrin was moving slow?
How do you slow down a hop down a ladder?
Well, among other things, you can start with 1/6th earth gravity. Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is about 1.6m/s^2. Even if you assume he was free falling (which he wouldn't be since his hands are holding on), and you assume a generous 0.25 meter drop, his maximum possible speed would have been a whopping 2 miles per hour. Or, put another way, during the 1/250th second exposure, he would have moved a maximum of 3 millimeters during the exposure.


does this jive with your calculations?

Yes it does. Why wouldn't it?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Could you explain, in your own words, the purpose of posting the "Buzz Descends" video?

(Careful, this will possibly affect your grade, come Monday).

I'll give you a hint (remember, I am so kind)....:


WHERE is "Buzz" in the photograph that we were discussing, the one YOU brought up as yet another inane "point"
that set us down this whole needless exercise, compared to WHERE "Buzz" was in the video? AND, WHAT he is in the act of doing, in the two (different) intances???



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
All of the photos taken while the crews were outside the LM were taken at an exposure of 1/250th of a second at f5.6, f/8 or f/11

Kodak Portra:

160 asa f 11 1/250 Mamiya RZ67:
www.flickr.com...
Motion blur

160 asa f 8 1/250 Mamiya RZ67:
www.flickr.com...
Motion blur, over exposed whites

160 asa f 5.6 1/250 Mamiya RZ67:
www.flickr.com...
160 asa f 5.6 1/250
Motion blur, sun side over exposed

Obviously we dont know how fast these persons were moving.
But taking in consideration that Neil was under time pressure.
He cannot see what he was actually capturing
Objects dont weigh the same
He was wearing a cumbersome suit

He probably set the camera at f/8 for cross-sun

Though the photo in question used SO-368 Ektachrome MS 70mm colour reversal (ASA 64)
ASA 64... not the number one choice for taking photos of subjects in the shade.


www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

The "photo in question" was taken on SO-168. (Note the magazine number:40) Like all of the surface color photographs.
www.archive.org...

The color film used by all the LM crews was SO-168 (HCEX) Ektachrome EF, high-speed color reversal film, ASA 160.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
That's a fine choice for multi-purpose color film. Excellent color with a fine grain.

But that isn't relevant to subject motion, shutter speed is all that matters. Do you honestly believe that Aldrin was moving as fast as a guitarists fingers and hands? I don't see any motion blur in your third example.


edit on 9/24/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

He probably set the camera at f/8 for cross-sun
He almost certainly had the camera at f/5.6 for those photos given 1) the depth of field and 2) that the directions printed on the camera say "LM in Shadow - 5.6."



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
All of the photos taken while the crews were outside the LM were taken at an exposure of 1/250th of a second at f5.6, f/8 or f/11



Obviously we dont know how fast these persons were moving.
But taking in consideration that Neil was under time pressure.
He cannot see what he was actually capturing
Objects dont weigh the same
He was wearing a cumbersome suit



This shot was taken at 1/250 f5.6 and ISO200. Despite all the action, including a ball in the air, there is practically no motion blur.



Are you eventually going to get to a point here Foos?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
All of the photos taken while the crews were outside the LM were taken at an exposure of 1/250th of a second at f5.6, f/8 or f/11

Kodak Portra:

160 asa f 11 1/250 Mamiya RZ67:
www.flickr.com...
Motion blur

160 asa f 8 1/250 Mamiya RZ67:
www.flickr.com...
Motion blur, over exposed whites

160 asa f 5.6 1/250 Mamiya RZ67:
www.flickr.com...
160 asa f 5.6 1/250
Motion blur, sun side over exposed

Obviously we dont know how fast these persons were moving.
But taking in consideration that Neil was under time pressure.
He cannot see what he was actually capturing
Objects dont weigh the same
He was wearing a cumbersome suit

He probably set the camera at f/8 for cross-sun

Though the photo in question used SO-368 Ektachrome MS 70mm colour reversal (ASA 64)
ASA 64... not the number one choice for taking photos of subjects in the shade.


www.hq.nasa.gov...


All right.
So we have to add "Motion Blur" to the list of expressions, FoosM does not know.
Since you have trouble grasping the concept of "longer", that does not suprise me much.
There is no motion blur in those photos.
Some parts are out of focus.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join