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: 486
377
<< 483  484  485    487  488  489 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And what could they do with 16000 speed film?


Dim light photography, obviously:
Skip to page 31.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What special light sensitive lens is that Foosm, 16,000 asa would be really grainy 1600 is bad enough what you gained in light sensitivity you would loose in detail!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


What special light sensitive lens is that Foosm, 16,000 asa would be really grainy 1600 is bad enough what you gained in light sensitivity you would loose in detail!


So what was its purpose?
This is not commercial film for the general public.
And lens, I told you, if you dont know google kubrick and NASA lens.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well, at ASA 16,000 at f/0.7, the exposure time would be a reasonable 1/50th of a second. But, as far as I can tell, that 2485 film was actually more like ASA 2000-6000. It could probably be push-processed to 16,000, but at the cost of contrast. I'm not sure what the purpose of that f/0.7 lens was, but it was certainly never used on an Apollo mission. The fastest lenses they had were f/2.8. So a more reasonable configuration would be 6000 ASA at f/2.8, which would give an exposure time of 1/15th of a second.

But of course, that's just a discussion of what was technically possible, and I'm not sure of its relevance.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


What special light sensitive lens is that Foosm, 16,000 asa would be really grainy 1600 is bad enough what you gained in light sensitivity you would loose in detail!


So what was its purpose?
This is not commercial film for the general public.
And lens, I told you, if you dont know google kubrick and NASA lens.



Some links claim NASA made the lens NO they may have suggested the spec but it was a ZEISS lens
very large aperture so low light work or to get the highest possible shutter speed for the light conditions.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


What special light sensitive lens is that Foosm, 16,000 asa would be really grainy 1600 is bad enough what you gained in light sensitivity you would loose in detail!


So what was its purpose?
This is not commercial film for the general public.
And lens, I told you, if you dont know google kubrick and NASA lens.



Some links claim NASA made the lens NO they may have suggested the spec but it was a ZEISS lens
very large aperture so low light work or to get the highest possible shutter speed for the light conditions.


The question is, what did NASA use the lens for?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The question is, what did NASA use the lens for?


It can get very, very, very dark in space. Perhaps they used them for "dim light" photography. Or perhaps... over to you, FoosM....
edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



The question is, what did NASA use the lens for?


It can get very, very, very dark in space. Perhaps they used them for "dim light" photography.


What dim light(s) in space?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Really, FoosM. I gave you the perfect "set up" to go into whatever nonsensical flight of fantasy you have been trying to set up... and you blow it like this?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Pre-emptive strike for the benefit of "black": the "dim light photographs" were intended to:

1) Provide additional information about potential landing sites not sufficiently covered by prior unmanned orbital missions

2) Provide imagery that could confirm ongoing volcanic activity on th Moon (that was my hope....)

3) Confirm the presence of the gegenschein. You do not want to get me started about the gegenschein.
edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


No I'm not, yes... and done. Did I miss anything?

Thank you for answering many questions but you did miss one very important post..

You were asked for full details of that pic of yours..
The most posted pic in ATS history so I'm sure you know the one..

Do you have the details requested including exif data and did you actually take the pic?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


I did read here that they had a special roll of film for taking pics of stars etc but it was accidentally used on normal moon scenes..
I'm not a photographer so can't give you the details but it has been mentioned in the thread..



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Pre-emptive strike for the benefit of "black": the "dim light photographs" were intended to:



sources
edit on 3-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor
 


I did read here that they had a special roll of film for taking pics of stars etc but it was accidentally used on normal moon scenes..
I'm not a photographer so can't give you the details but it has been mentioned in the thread..


So, they used a special roll of film for stars, but accidentally used for regular photos... I see.
Now assuming it was an accident, then they weren't aware of the film type they were using. Which means they based their camera settings on their regular stock. So, the results of the photos should have been completely blown! So for example you think you are using 100 asa, set your camera on it, but you didnt realize you had 1600 asa in your camera. We are talking major over-exposure and difference in grain. Now lets find out what magazine it is and see how good or bad the photography is!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor
 


I did read here that they had a special roll of film for taking pics of stars etc but it was accidentally used on normal moon scenes..
I'm not a photographer so can't give you the details but it has been mentioned in the thread..


So, they used a special roll of film for stars, but accidentally used for regular photos... I see.
Now assuming it was an accident, then they weren't aware of the film type they were using. Which means they based their camera settings on their regular stock. So, the results of the photos should have been completely blown! So for example you think you are using 100 asa, set your camera on it, but you didnt realize you had 1600 asa in your camera. We are talking major over-exposure and difference in grain. Now lets find out what magazine it is and see how good or bad the photography is!





Was it not 16000 asa you say 1600 above so i wouldn't hold up much hope!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So, they used a special roll of film for stars, but accidentally used for regular photos... I see.
Now assuming it was an accident, then they weren't aware of the film type they were using. Which means they based their camera settings on their regular stock. So, the results of the photos should have been completely blown!


If I remember right then yes, the pics they took were useless...
Maybe one of the others can point us back to a page where this was already discussed..



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



So, they used a special roll of film for stars, but accidentally used for regular photos... I see.
Now assuming it was an accident, then they weren't aware of the film type they were using. Which means they based their camera settings on their regular stock. So, the results of the photos should have been completely blown!


If I remember right then yes, the pics they took were useless...
Maybe one of the others can point us back to a page where this was already discussed..


But then questions pop up like why didnt they try it again on other missions?
What camera settings were they planning to use?
They probably had to be able to see stars to aim the camera to take pictures of the stars.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Was it not 16000 asa you say 1600 above so i wouldn't hold up much hope!


Sorry, but I dont understand what you are trying to say.
Can you re-state your what you mean?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



So, they used a special roll of film for stars, but accidentally used for regular photos... I see.
Now assuming it was an accident, then they weren't aware of the film type they were using. Which means they based their camera settings on their regular stock. So, the results of the photos should have been completely blown!


If I remember right then yes, the pics they took were useless...
Maybe one of the others can point us back to a page where this was already discussed..


But then questions pop up like why didnt they try it again on other missions?
What camera settings were they planning to use?
They probably had to be able to see stars to aim the camera to take pictures of the stars.



Standard lens on a Hasselblad was 80mm iirc so the 60mm they used was slightly wide angle thats why it was easy to take pictures without having to focus, field of view,depth of field etc see method in the madness Foosm.

If they pointed the camera at any part of the sky with the really fast film there would have been a good chance something would have shown up well as long as the sun wasn't in view.

Then again it wouldn't be any better than can be done from earth with the better equipment available.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Was it not 16000 asa you say 1600 above so i wouldn't hold up much hope!


Sorry, but I dont understand what you are trying to say.
Can you re-state your what you mean?


16000 asa not 1600 asa a big difference!




top topics



 
377
<< 483  484  485    487  488  489 >>

log in

join