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.

 

Film Photography On The Moon?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


The type of 'radiation' on the moon really only effects living cell tissue, why do you think rocks are orbiting the sun for some 4.5 billion years?


Not entirely true; peruse the section listed under "Radiation"...

education.ksc.nasa.gov... mdspacegrant/LunarRegolithExcavatorCourse/Chapter5.htm#RadiationandSurvivability




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BagBing
 


How long do you think the shutter is open for a light scattered exposure? You think Hasselblad never thought of that? Do you think the astronauts with those big huge gloves manually controlled the F-stop? In all a 300ths of a second exposure even 300 times exposes the lens to a second, and not continuously. Common really, you think that was a viable obstacle to overcome?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   


The page you have requested no longer exists or has been removed.

Suggestions

Use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page.
Use the navigation bar at the top of the page to find the information you want.
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


OK, next?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


Um, the gold you see on the outer visors on the astronaut helmets is real gold. My uncle blows real gold in glass, back in the 60's, its not a hard process. My cousin is continuing the art of glass blowing precious metals in glass art today. He's very good! No formal art training whosoever too.

I'd be happy to give you his website.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


I'm familiar with the techniques used to combine metals with glass (we had some Glass Gathering & Blowing in our Arts Foundation courses at university. Having said that, would love to see your cousins website. PM me). And it would explain a way to treat the lenses accordingly...it's just that I'm at a loss as to why this is never mentioned anywhere by anybody, all the more given how they go into great detail explaining away how they managed to make adjustments for every other contingency.

Cheers

Cheers



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


Show your source for that assumption then. You want us to show you a source for us not making the accusation, you first, Fair?

(BTW you have no idea what you are talking about).

But go ahead and try, I mean, if it proves anything.

You can't just spew out accusations with no sources and have people believe you know what is going on because you say so. We'd like to see the kinds of sources of information you are using/believing.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


In your internet anger you seem to have lost the ability to read...

Try again.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I do not know, and this is why I asked in the first place. How was it possible to take photographs on the moon without radiation shielding for the photographic equipment? That is the crux of the matter...to me. But, hey, tell you what, explain it to me in terms a third-grader could understand, given that you think I do not know what I'm talking about.

Even better, PM the white papers regards radiation levels on the lunar surface, types of radiation to be found on the lunar surface, steps taken to protect crew and vessels from radiation on the lunar surface, and any-many-sundry white papers that illustrate how the cameras and their film were protected from the potential for radiation. Instead of attacking my methods and what I'm saying, enlighten me with all of the pertaining data, for if you are accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, then you must be well-grounded in this subject matter, and therefore should certainly be able to provide me with everything I need to know.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BagBing
 


All due respect, if I want to be patronized, I'll talk to someone in government. Thank you just the same.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 


Your link failed to open, my links work.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeolus1970

Originally posted by 46ACE
First:It's not that"fragile"..

Secondly:Airport x-rays don't "wipe it"! They CAN add "fogging"( thereby lowering the contrast) to higher asa/iso ( i.e.more light sensitive)"films.(which can be compensated for in processing and printing.)

HASSELBLAD film magazines are removable. It would not surprise me if the cases they were stored in for the trip there and back contained some minimal shielding( but I don't know that they did.)

It's not a "good question" it is a"non issue"....
edit on 6-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Yes, I do not whether they used minimal shielding...and given that you do not know either, I do not think it fair for you to make the assessment of whether or not it is a "non issue". As an aside, nearly all film magazines that I know of are removable. That has no bearing...on anything, really. If radiation can make its way through the lens and shutter, then the film will likely be damaged, even if said film is encased in two inches of lead.


Just to clarify:
the medium format "120film " (6cm wide roll film"film") is loaded onto a takeup reel in a metal film "back" with a dark slide So the"magazines can be changed (camera reloaded or film type changed mid-roll) in daylight by just switching "magazines". Of course 35mm film "cartridges" were "removable"(after being rewound back into the cartridge).
There is a mechanical difference (in film transports) between 35mm and medium format cameras. the entire back half of the Hassleblad comes off...Not that it changes anything. Just extra metal around the film

If YOU could say how much "radiation"was present (intensity);what type (band); and for how long; the loaded film magazine was present you(someone) may be able to make a judgement as to the effect on the film stock. Just stating: "radiation was present(eeeek!) So film photography was "impossible" is Both unfair and inaccurate...
I am familiar with: large format (4"x5");medium format 6cm(120)
and 35mm film cameras. and filmsand processing . What's more Nasa has nothing to "prove" to me...

I know the moon is illuminated by the same light the earth is(the sun) so a full sunlit exposure on the moon is the same as it is on earth:1/asa @ f16 (the photographers "sunny-16 rule")
Knowing that I can say:
So high speed(high asa) sensitive films were not necessary. Which means the film was less sensitive to any "radiation"(including visible light).I don't know what stock was used(I'm sure the information is readily available; But . I'm not doubting the photography.).

IIRC one or two passes under airline x-ray machines were deemed insignificant on films under 400 asa;kodachrome transparency films were rated asa 64 and 25 ;Kodak Ecktachrome was rated asa 160: all are significantly less sensitive to light; xrays and ( and high energy cosmic radiation) than any 400speed film.

x-ray radiation exposure (like visible light) is cumulative: a half hour at a high level may be enough to create a noticeable effect that would take 8 hours at a lower level to create.

Leaf shutter blades are thinner than the steel used in the construction of the camera body so splt second the shutter is open or closed would not have a large effect.

edit on 6-1-2012 by 46ACE because: spelling

edit on 6-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


1) There are various types of Solar & cosmic radiation. They would have differing effects on film and they have differring abilities in penetrating different materials. Can you explain which types would be of concern and what effects you would expect them to have on photographic film.



Well first you have cosmic rays. They can penetrate just about anything and you would expect to see little dots on the film were the collision occurred. Then you have a flow of electrons and protons coming from the sun wich would show up as a "fog" effect seen on the film. Then there are x rays coming from solar flares. Then you have gamma radiations coming from distant super novi and the collision of these high energy protons and electrons colliding with particles on the moons surface. Effects of gama rays on film not quite sure. But considering all of this how did they shield the astronauts and film from all of this because every single one of these is a concern to me if Im going outside the protection of LEO.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 

How large are the particles which compose cosmic rays? Would the impact of such particles produce a visible trace? Would cosmic rays (which are high energy particles) affect the photoreactive materials (of film) which are by design sensitive mostly to electromagnetic radiation at the frequencies of visible light?

Cosmic rays are generally composed of particles of higher atomic weights and energy than solar protons and electrons so any effects of solar particles would be the same or less. Would those effects be visible on photographic film?

X-rays of what energy levels (frequencies) does the Sun emit? What would be the required frequencies of x-rays be in order to penetrate both the metallic body of the cameras and the film magazines? What x-ray flux levels (of sufficient energies) were experienced by the astronauts on the lunar surface? Were there any significant solar flares during any of the EVAs?

Yes, good question about gamma radiation. Does it affect photographic film? And if so, were flux levels sufficient to produce visible effects?
edit on 1/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Hasselblad
Apollo 11 Hasselblad
Photography of Apollo
Photography techniques

To get you started, also look up Westinghouse main page, they are quite proud of having TV cameras on the moon, and have a direct link to their cameras in space (I though I saved).

Also what sort of radiation on the moon do you think sun glasses and white reflective paint can't deflect is?

The biggest problem (mostly early in the moon landings was) static electricity from rolling the film, created a lot of 'electrical looking lightning charges) on the film. Heat, and cold were not factors if that is what you are thinking, there is no air to carry ambient heat on the moon, and it wasn't cold either, not in a lunar morning.


the first link states nothing about shielding of the thin film..

3rd~upon using the basic word search on Firefox (Ctrl F) brings up zero hits on 2 word searches.. 'radiation' and 'shielding'



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeolus1970
I do not know, and this is why I asked in the first place. How was it possible to take photographs on the moon without radiation shielding for the photographic equipment?


What makes you think the equipment needed radiation shielding? You state it needed it, why do you think that?


That is the crux of the matter...to me.


how about you tell us why you think it needed radiation shielding in the first place....


PM the white papers regards radiation levels on the lunar surface, types of radiation to be found on the lunar surface, steps taken to protect crew and vessels from radiation on the lunar surface, and any-many-sundry white papers that illustrate how the cameras and their film were protected from the potential for radiation.


you must have them, as you state the camera equipment needed radiation shielding.... why do you think it needed it?


for if you are accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about,


how about telling us why you think the equipment needed radiation shielding?
edit on 7-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Since there is so much disagreement about the radiation effects on the cameras, work it another way.
There is no other way to get hundreds of pounds of moon rocks without going to the moon, so it appears that the cameras did not require any radiation shielding.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeolus1970
reply to post by BagBing
 


All due respect, if I want to be patronized, I'll talk to someone in government. Thank you just the same.


What did I say that was patronising?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Here's a document specifically on The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film, however one might determine this is not applicable to Apollo mission photography since it is Space Shuttle centric. It also sites the issues of concern with radiation on film is largely just exposures. Of interest may be studies sited in the bibliography such as:

Corney, G. M. “The Effect of Gamma-ray Exposure on Camera Films,” Photographic Science
and Engineering, Volume 4, Number 5, September-October 1960.

Boller, B. K. “Sensitometric Effects of Million-volt X-rays on Selected Kodak Films,”
Photographic Science and Engineering, Volume 8, Number 4, July-August 1964.

Weinstein, R., Boltax A., and Giovanni L. Nuclear Engineering Fundamentals, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Huff, K. E. and Clear, H. M. Unpublished work “Effects of Proton Exposure on Several Kodak
Black and White Films”, New York: Research Laboratories Eastman Kodak Company,
August 1968.

Hertz, R. H. The Photographic Action of Ionizing Radiation, London: Wiley-Interscience, 1969.

Crawford, G. W. Mean Ionization Potential for Monte Carlo Penetration of Charged Particles in
Matter, Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University, 1969.

and later studies


Apparently, the vacuum of space and temperatures were larger concerns in camera development.

From our first space journey on Oct. 3,1962, Hasselblad cameras have played an integral part in the Space program, capturing the images that help us to understand our world and its surroundings. There are a range of special modifications and improvements required to meet the stringent demands of space travel.


Maybe send a specific inquiry directly to Hasselblad about space radiation effects on their cameras.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Secondly:Airport x-rays don't "wipe it"! They CAN add "fogging"( thereby lowering the contrast) to higher asa/iso ( i.e.more light sensitive)"films.(which can be compensated for in processing and printing.)
My understanding is, the answer to the OP's question was in this 4th reply.

You don't see this warning at the airports any more, but back when film cameras were common and X-ray machines used higher energies, the warning signs talked about the dangers of fogging "high speed" or "sensitive" films, intended for photography in low light conditions. The airport X-ray machine makers claimed normal film was perfectly fine going though the airport X-ray machines.

I believe that herein lies the answer to the moon film question. Photographic conditions on the moon were such that high speed film was not required, in fact just the opposite. The moon was pretty bright. So highly sensitive film, the type which was susceptible to radiation fogging, was not used.

I really think it's that simple.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I've inquired to Hasselblad about their camera modifications during the Apollo missions and to Kodak for their special film used for the Hasselblad camera for the Apollo lunar landings. will post replies as I receive them.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Rant follows:


I've got to ad this rather involved point:

It applies to the beginning of this thread AND half a dozen threads here; at any particular time you care to look:
I don't give 30seconds credit to any youtube videos where some common"'schmoe"downloads a picture into photoshop or paintshop pro; throws on the "emboss" or any other"filter and discovers "bigfoot"/e.t./cities on the moon.


because:

You are NOT seeing the actual "scene"; you are seeing a representation of it modified by the limitations of the camera/lens and film/processing printing "SYSTEM".

(in a court room a photographer will be asked to testify under oath: "the image is a true and accurate representation of the scene as I saw it" A photograph is not evidence on its face value; until A human witness validates it with testimony).


The entire apparatus is a "system". Lenses don't transmit and focus all colors (frequencies)of light equally.(I.E.infrared has a different focus point marked on older(non auto- focus) lenses). Not all light sources have a complete spectrum.

Rarely is a "system" "calibrated" from on end of the process to the other: I.,E.Taking an image of a recreate-able target; with a standard full spectrum light source; at a known exposure, and ASA.
Process and print the film; compare the results with the original scene and adjust the process until it is measurably a"perfect representation".

That was the "film" portion . NOW we are in the digital age:

Take your calibrated, controlled, perfectly handled and processed transparency or negative (forget a paper print; its one more generation of variables farther from the original scene) and you run it through a:
"Digital SCANNER" which has its own fluctuating power supply/electronics/(dirty?) lenses and an image sensor which interpolates analog colors and brightness and turns it into numbers (digital data): rounding up here;down there/ truncating over there...saving to a"file"
That "file" is put on a server somewhere;

"Joe Schmoe" from Edison N.J.downloads his "moon walking /hidden bigfoot" NASA image. from the internet server. ( digital transfer is pretty solid with error checking; its one of the reasons we all went "digital"you are getting as close as you can to the (original scanner"interpretation").

To his Sams' club hp pavillion desktop, with uncalibrated LCD monitor; his desktop decides how to interpret that file data and turn it into light and dark and color.

He further "processes" the pixel data to "release/discover" extra data that If the camera/film/combination didn't capture in the beginning of the process Isn't part of the original scene.

But any noise/dirt/.jpg compression artifacts included into the "system"( remember: its a huge system of equipment between the scene and Joes mom's basement in the "dirty Jers"..Errors can be introduced at any stage.

Schmoe(and his brother in law "Hoaglund": produce a 3hour "press release" on the coast to coast A.m.: "Alien Robot head discovered on Mars!!!!!!!!!"

and posts his "discovery" on you tube as "proof!" :


That's ALL barring: outright attention grabbing fraud and fakery by someone who wants to sell: dvd's,or crystals or;"memberships". Or just wants their 5 minutes of minor C to C A.M.airtime fame...

what it "is": is altered digital video "art".and a whale of a story
Not an"analysis" of nasa photos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. :flame

Analogy Added: To put it simply: Think about this; the next time you want to open a book to a "picture of a dark jungle"; and shine a flash light from your pocket on the page to see the monkeys sleeping in the trees!"The "hidden" information from the original scene is just NOT THERE in the book image.



edit on 7-1-2012 by 46ACE because: spelling

edit on 7-1-2012 by 46ACE because: Analogy added

edit on 7-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join