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.
originally posted by: Pimpish
How can you tell those are stars? There's millions of those little dots all over those very low quality photos as far as I can tell.
ETA: Look at the dark spots on the leg or whatever that is, plenty of dots in there as well. I'm sure there weren't stars there...same thing with the dark spots on the bottom photo in the shadows of the rock or whatever that is. Plenty of dots there. I'm quite sure they aren't stars there either.
originally posted by: ngchunter
There are also "stars" in the dark regions of the moon in that photo, as has already been pointed out. If those were real stars you should be able to tell us WHICH stars they are by astrometry.
originally posted by: ngchunter
..No, you can NOT see stars in fast film exposures designed to properly expose the moon's surface...
originally posted by: mrkeen
originally posted by: ngchunter
There are also "stars" in the dark regions of the moon in that photo, as has already been pointed out. If those were real stars you should be able to tell us WHICH stars they are by astrometry.
You are reiterating the same argument, so I will have to repeat the answer. You don't expect to get light noise without the light source.
The black shadows in the foreground are completely black.
This proves that noise is not some kind of static on the matrix or energy particles rain or solar wind or anything.
You have light noise where you have light affecting the camera. And the density and intensity of this noise follows the same properties of the light source. This is similar to dithering when you get a noisy picture, but still can see the features through it. In the same way you can see the brightest objects (stars or planets) clearly, and the rest repeats the background properties in a stochastic manner.
originally posted by: Pimpish
Here are some panoramas from Lunokhod 2. Pretty much just look like noise to me.
www.planetology.ru...
Specifically this panorama:
www.planetology.ru...
There is something partially blocking the lens on either side of the panorama. Yet there are still little white dots all through it.
As with many Soviet space images, generation loss prevents us from seeing the original quality. Most Lunokhod images are derived from scanning printed images or second-generation film copies. Each stage of photography, printing and scanning introduces noise, nonlinear brighness mapping, and (worst of all) clamping to white or black.
originally posted by: mrkeen
There is no way to trigger a grain chemically other than its receiving photons.
originally posted by: smurfy
Are not all those Lunokhod pictures phototelevision video sent back via FM by the rovers and orbiters via a in-house made system. Jodrell Bank got picture/s from a signal. Most pictures we got were second generation or worse, scans.
It seems that the pictures received were quite good,
"On February 3, 1966, Luna-9 became the first spacecraft to land on the Moon. On February 4 and 5, it transmitted 3 cycloramic panoramas from an optical-mechanical camera. The camera was developed by A.S. Selivanov and his team at the Institute of Space Device Engineering, and the results were analyzed at the Sternberg Astronomical Institute and by A.I. Lebedinskii at Moscow University. The images were transmitted as analog FM video signals at one stroke per second over a 250 Hz subcarrier (equivalent to 500 pixels/line)"
Moon catalogue,
mentallandscape.com...