It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captainpudding
Can you prove any of these statements? You provide an entire post of anecdotal "evidence" and just expect us to take your word for it? You'll certainly have to do better than that, for starters why do you think the film would be damaged?
Originally posted by mrkeen
reply to post by exponent
Usually I do not participate in 'holy wars' about Apollo moon landings because I am deeply convinced this old 60s story is not important anymore. I was born when this already was history.
What is most important to me is whether or not humanity will step on other planets during my lifetime. Up until now there was no real movement except for inflated boasting 'we went there' and 'we will go there sometime'. I believe that humanity still does the only thing it is really capable of doing, i.e. sending automated probes to other planets. And these probes crawl about at a ridiculous speed and have hundreds of people on Earth supporting every move. ISS soars not higher than 260 miles above the Earth surface, which is a laughable distance by Earth terms. These are the facts, not the photos.
As for the Moon surface and the 'old cr@ppy camera' argument, I believe that whatever camera you use, you can tell purple from gray, and whatever color filter you use, you just pick the right formula and get approximately correct hue. In fact photograpy using separate color filters is one of the first and the most precise ones. Just look at these photos:
All you need is proper calibration and you get highly realistic colors, much better than a CCD matrix can produce. So, yes, I believe that the Moon surface is the same color as the samples brought to Earth.
Jack, you ought to get a scoop of that dirt, though.
Well, there’s one scoop - - . Look what’s underneath
it. It’s white.
I got quite a bit. And the next 10 cm of the light-
gray material, probably in 485 (79260). A possibility here
is that this upper 6 inches of gray material in here is the
latest mantling in the area and the light-colored debris may
be what’s left over from the impact.
Even if humans can survive several hours in bright sunshine (without lead suits), any film would be damaged, so even if anyone was there back in 60s, there is no point in discussing the photos, for all of them would be severely damaged by radiation.edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit
Originally posted by mrkeen
This is 1995 report, and back in 60s picking the correct film was a gamble. The report also says the effects are significantly dependent on exposure. You don't know what is the correct exposure on Moon surface. You have to guess. I know what happens to your film when you guess exposure, because I made quite a few shots using an SLR camera in my life.edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)
The "rule of sunny-16" is simply a handy trick to remember a fairly simple way to set proper exposure in bright daylight (with strong shadows). The camera aperture is set to f/16 (hence the -16 in sunny-16). The "sunny" part is based on the sun having to be bright and high in the sky, casting dark shadows.
The film you load in the camera has a printed film speed (ISO/ASA rating) that typically is 25 ASA or 25 ISO through 800 ASA or 800 ISO, depending on the film's speed. Simply take the reciprocal of this number as the shutter speed. So for 25 ASA/ISO film, the speed would be 1/25th second (so use the closest standard shutter speed, here 1/30th second on most cameras). For 100 ASA/ISO film, you would use f/16 and 1/100th second (or 1/125th on many cameras). How about 400 ASA/ISO film? 800 ASA/ISO? Did you guess 1/400th second, or 1/500th on most cameras; 1/800th second, or 1/1,000th second on most cameras?
Originally posted by MortPenguin
This photo linked above looks very brown. It kinda resembles wet soil next to very dry soil and desert soil. Obviously the NASA photos are manipulated to appear grey.
This photo has very brightly colored areas. After saturating the color it appears like the photo linked above. So it has been desaturated to appear the moon is grey. Or the set.
edit on 4-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)
Resaturated again and that looks closer to the lunar module camera. Aren't they cheeky? I placed it next to the NASA version for comparison.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Light source the Sun same as Earth, film speed , shutter & aperture you will be familiar with the sunny 16 rule when you bought film the leaflet gave you setting for various conditions.
Plenty of people on here into photography from amatuer, semi-pro to pro and they post on these threads to help clear the BS!
Originally posted by MortPenguin
But the flag wasn't desaturated. More than likely it was touched up as well. You know americans, So perhaps I under did it? How could we really be sure what colour the image should be after being deceived? Maybe it looked more like this:
The lunar day lasts 27 days, 7 hours and 43.2 minutes
Originally posted by Moduli
But I guess even JAXA is in on the conspiracy? NASA called them up and told them to fake the terabytes of data coming from KAGUYA to make it look like the moon is exactly as gray as it appears to be.
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
I'm beginning to think you're a bottle short of a six pack mate.
This is a result of stacking 39 DSLR images in Registax6. They were taken through an FL102S scope.
The resultant image was saved and one copy sharpened etc in photoshop and desaturated as a luminence layer and another copy was subject to much saturation and then blurred with a gaussian blur and the two images combined in photoshop.
"Color is a very, very subjective phenomenon," he said. "Color is in the eye of the beholder."
As an example, Brecher asks what color the Moon is. The instinctive answer is "white." Some might say yellow. And in certain sky conditions, it can look orange.
Brecher calls this question absurd, too, because it does not include the context necessary to allow an accurate answer. The dusty coating on the Moon's surface resembles finely ground charcoal. "If you bring average lunar material to Earth and view it in normal terrestrial lighting, it would look very dark." The color of the Moon and the light coming from it are two very different things.
"It is time for astronomers and the press alike to carefully distinguish between [color and light] when discussing astronomy.