Stabilized HD footage of Moon LRV!

This is stabilized HD footage of the LRV on the Moon from the Apollo 16 mission. Perhaps this has been seen by some of you already, but after doing a search I was unable to locate this particular video on the website. I'm not entirely sure what to think about the moon landing, but I'll say that this video may have reinforced some opinions that I have. I believe someone has taken previous footage and stabilized it to give us this footage. You'll see the screen border will bounce around but the image stays in place.

I find it fascinating and at the same time very strange. It really does NOT seem real to me, but I've never been to the moon so how would I know? To clarify, I believe we DID land on the moon and I think that is what makes this video even more surreal. It exposes things I wasn't previously able to see.

A couple things I noticed:

1) This is yet another video where the stars cannot be seen in the sky. I don't think this proves or disproves anything, but I know many people rely on this as evidence of a hoax.

2) I was watching the dust that was displaced by the tires on the LRV and also the movements of the LRV itself. These two things do not seem consistent with videos of the Astronauts walking or "hopping" on the moon. I think my own knowledge is lacking in how dust might settle or act while under no atmospheric influence.




What do you guys notice here? Anything suspicious? All clear? Even if this footage doesn't prove anything, it definitely is interesting. It's also refreshing to see some footage that amounts to more than blurred figures in a sea of grey and black.

I'd like to hear your opinions, and maybe get some expert opinions to support or debunk this!

reply to post by ZiggyMojo

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


I don't know what to think about that, except how come all the videos aren't such high quality?
Pretty cool..

I'm on the fence about the whole thing.. I usually lean more towards yes the footage is all real. sometimes I think they made fake footage before the moon landing just in case the moon landings didn't work, and maybe some of that was released as real footage?

Who knows, but yea HD, looks nice.

Yea exactly, how come that looks like it was filmed yesterday, when most of it looks like it was filmed just after henry the eighth had his second wifes head lopped off?

The dust goes straight up and down, no wind blow. How often do you see that? When the rover stops the last of the dust falls through the open mesh wheels come tyres, they are see through. Also it is obvious it is not filmed in a silo with a false backdrop, as some have speculated, this very video proves that.
The only thing you might criticize is the serious amount of money Boeing got for creating them, even then, it was still a great achievement.

I'm not sure if this footage was stabilized with modern software or if it was done closer to the time of filming. Either way it shows that we have/had the capability of producing high quality footage and images. There is no excuse for the stuff we get from Mars or even the other moon footage.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Wow that some great video thanks for sharing

It's inevitable this thread will go on and on again about the fake Apollo mission(s). Having grown up near 'The Cape' and watched the evolution of it as family, then later myself, working there was somewhat of a family tradition...we have no doubt what happened.

Science happened. Research, test/failures/ death, mathematics, and money.

Having been so personally involved we are very proud of the achievements, so seeing this video takes me back home again. In the future, space 'tourists' will be visiting these sites such as the one in the video, and the below photo taken by the LRO.



NASA foresees this, and has asked that anyone visiting these sites in the future... to 'please not touch their stuff'
www.nasa.gov...

ETA:
The 'no stars in the sky' that always comes up. It's a result of the old camera white balance issue, it has to over expose it's shots in order to properly expose the bright moonscape, thereby leaving the stars blacked out.

The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and an 81.8 cm diameter, 23 cm wide tire made of zinc coated woven 0.083 cm diameter steel strands attached to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50% of the contact area to provide traction.

So the moon dust actually entered the hollow wheels and was cast about like that.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Yea exactly, how come that looks like it was filmed yesterday, when most of it looks like it was filmed just after henry the eighth had his second wifes head lopped off?

Most of it you're watching the original video footage, wheras this is scanned in from the actual 16mm film. Modern film scanners are a world away from how they did things back then.

I don't know why people still repeat 'no stars in the sky' as if it was some sort of evidence. The explanation for this has remained the same for the last 50 years. Cameras have a limited range of light they can accept and so if you set the exposure for daylight conditions (ie the surface of the moon), the camera doesn't capture enough light to make stars visible.

Any photographer can prove this to you in about 5 minutes. It's explained on the internet in images, videos and mathematics.

It couldn't be more debunked.

reply to post by Lonewulph


Yeah, the opinions I had previously were pretty much confirmed here. I only picked out the two things above because they were the only two things I could find that may put up a red flag. Otherwise this video has only confirmed to me that we have been to the moon.

I'd be interested to hear some opinions that try to debunk this.

It also poses the question of: Why can't we get this sort of quality now? Why don't we have more footage like this?

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
I'm not sure if this footage was stabilized with modern software or if it was done closer to the time of filming. Either way it shows that we have/had the capability of producing high quality footage and images. There is no excuse for the stuff we get from Mars or even the other moon footage.

What do you mean 'the stuff we get from Mars'. There have been high quality photos (and occasionally videos) from both Mars and the Moon for a long time.

Anything in particular you'd like to highlight?

reply to post by exponent


Tons of black and white images from previous missions to mars, and various other blurred and unrefined videos from the moon landing and related missions.

We were able to produce film of this quality and color then, why did we skimp on other more recent missions? If we're gonna spend the amount we have on recent Mars missions, why didn't they engineer the equipment to include quality imaging/video equipment from the start?

It probably isn't some grand conspiracy, but rather an oversight in planning. Regardless both the moon and Mars missions are incredible feats of engineering and human science.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
reply to post by exponent

 

Tons of black and white images from previous missions to mars, and various other blurred and unrefined videos from the moon landing and related missions.

Black and white is pretty common in science. Colours are mostly a perceptual thing and scientists are usually interested in the intensity at a specific wavelength. An image with only one wavelength is black and white.

We were able to produce film of this quality and color then, why did we skimp on other more recent missions? If we're gonna spend the amount we have on recent Mars missions, why didn't they engineer the equipment to include quality imaging/video equipment from the start?

It does. The descent camera for example is way higher quality than 16mm film with the bonus of not having to be returned to earth to be processed! Check out this smoothed version:


This required a fair bit of manual work but the original is just the same at a lower framerate. It's really not low quality by any stretch of the imagination.

It probably isn't some grand conspiracy, but rather an oversight in planning. Regardless both the moon and Mars missions are incredible feats of engineering and human science.

They really are, and I think you're just not familiar with the quality of data we get back. If you can be more specific I can provide examples.

Welp, that does it for me. I'm now 100% sure they were on the moon. There was no way that was filmed on Earth.

reply to post by exponent


Well, I actually did some more reading on the cameras and scientific research in general. Nothing extensive obviously, but this is really the first time I've ever taken enough interest in the whole Moon/Mars landing subject to research at all. I've read things in passing but never tried to put it all together.

The black and white photography makes sense to me a little more now. I also know, from my own experience in digital compiling and image manipulation that a color image can be produced with a few black and white images and using the black and white values themselves.

The logistics of sending an image or streaming video from space has to be a nightmare in comparison to what we deal with on Earth. I often forget that these missions are for research and not tourism. Someday though.. Someday we will get to see these things in person.. Maybe not in our lifetime, but I have faith that space travel will be far more common in the future.

Thanks for that, I had never seen that footage before, stabalised or not, amazing.

The whole lack of stars thing has been debunked many, many times.

They were on the moon, I have no doubt.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
reply to post by exponent

 

The logistics of sending an image or streaming video from space has to be a nightmare in comparison to what we deal with on Earth. I often forget that these missions are for research and not tourism. Someday though.. Someday we will get to see these things in person.. Maybe not in our lifetime, but I have faith that space travel will be far more common in the future.

I'm 100% with you there. I would love nothing more than to be able to get involved with something like that. Unfortunately I was born in the wrong country and at the wrong time.

Hopefully I'll live long enough for it to become a commodity.

S&F for the amazing video.

There's lots of Apollo footage from the 16 mm cameras:
www.dvidshub.net...
archive.org...

www.youtube.com...


So here's the deal - footage from a 16mm colour film camera is many times better than the video broadcast that was transmitted from the Moon. The 16mm film preserves a fair amount of detail and can be scanned at high resolution (and restored, if necessary) to create such a good looking video.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Yea exactly, how come that looks like it was filmed yesterday, when most of it looks like it was filmed just after henry the eighth had his second wifes head lopped off?

I think you are confusing the DAC footage with the TV camera transmissions.

Almost all of the stuff I've seen from the DAC is this quality (minus the stabilization). However, much of the archive of what we see from the Moon was the feed of the TV transmissions. Those TV transmissions were done with the TV camera, not the DAC.

The TV camera has far worse resolution than the DAC, considering the TV signal need to be transmitted back to Earth, while the DAC footage was physical film that was developed after the astronauts returned.

reply to post by wildespace


That is awesome footage.
I especially liked the triangle ufo at 12:03!

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
reply to post by exponent

 

Tons of black and white images from previous missions to mars...

First you need to realize that ALL digital camera light sensors (the camera's CCD) are color blind; they can only detect (i.e., "see in") gray scale -- even your consumer digital camera's CCD is color blind.

Let me explain. The way digital cameras produce color is by viewing an image through various filters (Red, Green, Blue), or more commonly through a single combined RGB filter called a "Bayer Filter". Each picture you take goes through that filter before striking the CCD light sensor (which, as I said, can only see in shades of gray). The color of light passing through those filters is read by the CCD as different shades and intensities of gray. Computer algorithms inside your camera then compares those gray scales as seen through the different RGB filters, then translates those different intensities into what it thinks the actual color is -- based on what science knows about color and gray scale intensities.

This all happens quickly in your camera, and what you end up with is a "color" JPEG in less than one second. However, that color has been interpolated from gray scale information. A "RAW" file (which some better consumer cameras can output to you) would give you the three color channels (RGB) prior to JPEG interpolation.That RAW file would contain more information about the image than the interpolated JPEG file, which creates a lossy file (a file with lost data).

That takes us to the Mars Rovers black and white images. The Mars rovers take each image multiple times as viewed though multiple and various filters of different wavelengths of light. Instead of it working like your consumer camera -- i.e., doing the combining of the various filtered images and interpolating the color INSIDE the camera, the rovers send those raw images (as seen through the various filters) back to Earth so they could be processed here instead.

Those images are then processed in color here on Earth, and some of those color images submitted to the public. However, if you look at the raw images from the rovers, all you see is the gray scale.

Imaging scientists like this because it gives them more flexibility to process the images different ways to contrast different types of materials to make them stand out against other materials (the "false color" images we often see.

The twin MER rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) worked this way, but the new rover (Curiosity) has a Bayer filter built into the Mast Cam and MAHLI camera, so the pictures transmitted back to earth can be seen in color.