Got it. Or in terms I understand, something like the Nyquist limit.
You're actually closer than you realize. The exact same math, specifically that of the Fourier Transform, shows up in antenna patterns. Like cameras, antennas sense electromagnetic radiation and a bigger antenna is able to sense smaller angular differences than a small antenna.
This is related to other reciprocal relationships in physics, such as the uncertainty principle.
At least when I was shooting models I was able to lock down the camera and use 2-second exposures -- otherwise I could have never done it with 50 watt halogen R30's.
Somewhere I read some stories by those who did the model photography for the original Star Trek TV series. To get the required depth of field they had to work with extremely bright lighting. That made it very uncomfortable to work in their uncooled workspaces in the summertime.
If you've ever visited the Smithsonian and seen the original Enterprise model you know it wasn't that small to begin with. So doing convincing fakery of an Apollo lunar scene on a table top doesn't seem very practical.
Re: You can very rarely convert a Hoax Believer « Reply #32 on Jan 3, 2012, 4:59pm »
This discussion about depth of field with scale models makes me realize that the only way we'll ever be able to truly fake any given scene is in the computer graphics domain -- which we already know, really. It'll just take some time, because we're still not there yet.
This discussion about depth of field with scale models makes me realize that the only way we'll ever be able to truly fake any given scene is in the computer graphics domain -- which we already know, really. It'll just take some time, because we're still not there yet.
A non-CGI approach (that, nevertheless, requires a computer) is focus stacking - building up an image in layers from multiple exposures of the same scene with different focal depths.
eta: (I wonder why the "preview" button just immediately posts my messages?)
Joined: Jan 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 74 Location: Red Deer Alberta
Re: You can very rarely convert a Hoax Believer « Reply #35 on Jan 17, 2012, 9:23am »
I originally came to this forum to mess with hoaxers cause I believed it was a hoax site. I forget where I read it but after I had come here and seen how many people were actually sane and did the research required to form a opinion with a foundation to it...I researched the beginnings of this forum. It was founded by a moon hoax believer and I even went on to ask Lunar when I registered if it was true that it was founded by a hoax believer that was converted so to speak. I myself have converted quite a few people on another website that sided with a radical and slightly socially retarded member that believes in every conspiracy known to man. This site and Clavius was the base of my research and everything I needed to know was here...I still researched many other places to make sure I wasn't doing what I have come to hate and that is just repeating others posts and work.
In the beginning of that "debate" I guess you could call it was me verses about 15 other people. Most were unsure if we landed on the moon or maybe just faked the first landing...the other 5 were dead set against anyone being able to land on the moon period. I stated and still use this as the base for if any conspiracy is plausible....NO ONE CAN KEEP A SECRET.
One of the group agreed with me and turned over to my "dark side of the force" lmao. Thus began a 550 post total battle between me and the others. By about halfway I had scored half of them at least. By 400 or so all of them minus the one hardheaded and very ignorant and insulting thread creator.He posted the Sibrel faked moon video footage and I used the weather matching thread here to disprove that and the rest of the group that once believed in a hoax all sent me messages about how embarrassed they were to have even considered a hoax in the first place. I took no pride or credit for the "victory" simply linked the all here or told them to thank NASA for I had nothing to do with it...funny thing is two of them got Aldrins or Armstrong s autograph since. That is the straight truth and so your not the only one to have been converted by people that love the Apollo missions...frankly it happens more so than I think any of us would like to take credit for or even give credit to!
I originally came to this forum to mess with hoaxers cause I believed it was a hoax site. I forget where I read it but after I had come here and seen how many people were actually sane and did the research required to form a opinion with a foundation to it...I researched the beginnings of this forum. It was founded by a moon hoax believer and I even went on to ask Lunar when I registered if it was true that it was founded by a hoax believer that was converted so to speak. I myself have converted quite a few people on another website that sided with a radical and slightly socially retarded member that believes in every conspiracy known to man. This site and Clavius was the base of my research and everything I needed to know was here...I still researched many other places to make sure I wasn't doing what I have come to hate and that is just repeating others posts and work.
In the beginning of that "debate" I guess you could call it was me verses about 15 other people. Most were unsure if we landed on the moon or maybe just faked the first landing...the other 5 were dead set against anyone being able to land on the moon period. I stated and still use this as the base for if any conspiracy is plausible....NO ONE CAN KEEP A SECRET.
One of the group agreed with me and turned over to my "dark side of the force" lmao. Thus began a 550 post total battle between me and the others. By about halfway I had scored half of them at least. By 400 or so all of them minus the one hardheaded and very ignorant and insulting thread creator.He posted the Sibrel faked moon video footage and I used the weather matching thread here to disprove that and the rest of the group that once believed in a hoax all sent me messages about how embarrassed they were to have even considered a hoax in the first place. I took no pride or credit for the "victory" simply linked the all here or told them to thank NASA for I had nothing to do with it...funny thing is two of them got Aldrins or Armstrong s autograph since. That is the straight truth and so your not the only one to have been converted by people that love the Apollo missions...frankly it happens more so than I think any of us would like to take credit for or even give credit to!
That's awesome. You should feel proud that you were able to convince some of the most close-minded people in the world.
Somewhere I read some stories by those who did the model photography for the original Star Trek TV series. To get the required depth of field they had to work with extremely bright lighting. That made it very uncomfortable to work in their uncooled workspaces in the summertime.
Gerry Anderson's puppet shows involved a lot of model work. Sometimes the takes were limited by how long it took the intense lighting to set the model's paint on fire...
Gerry Anderson's puppet shows involved a lot of model work. Sometimes the takes were limited by how long it took the intense lighting to set the model's paint on fire...
That makes a particular episode where a parabolic mirror from an experimental solar thermal power plant ended up stuck pointing at the town below and nearly setting it on fire even more amusing in retrospect.
Somewhere I read some stories by those who did the model photography for the original Star Trek TV series. To get the required depth of field they had to work with extremely bright lighting. That made it very uncomfortable to work in their uncooled workspaces in the summertime.
Gerry Anderson's puppet shows involved a lot of model work. Sometimes the takes were limited by how long it took the intense lighting to set the model's paint on fire...
Did they have trouble keeping the pyros from going off prematurely?
Gerry Anderson's puppet shows involved a lot of model work. Sometimes the takes were limited by how long it took the intense lighting to set the model's paint on fire...
Did they have trouble keeping the pyros from going off prematurely?
I always wondered how they kept the pyros from melting the models.
Did they have trouble keeping the pyros from going off prematurely?
I always wondered how they kept the pyros from melting the models.
For a lot of shots, I am give to understand that they would edit it so that the model wasn't there when the pyrotechnics went off, a simple jump cut. Someone more knowledgeable on these things correct me if I am wrong.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/RedneckR0nin/You_drive_me_crazy_by_eikoweb.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://cellar.org/2009/SpaceMonkey1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a227/alasdhair/dracul6.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/117/2/a/Raven_over_Neo_Venus_by_Ravens_Cry.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.bautforum.com/signaturepics/sigpic31082_1.gif "[avatar]")