Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

And what could they do with 16000 speed film?

Dim light photography, obviously:
Skip to page 31.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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....

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?

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?

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.

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?

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..

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

sources

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!

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!

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..

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.

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?

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.

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!