|
Post by gadou on Nov 14, 2005 20:40:16 GMT -4
Real or not, I'm quite septical by this perfect shoot, done with a remote control camera from earth with a pefectly timming zoom-out just on the fire engine, following by a perfect tilt-up and ending with a zoom-in on the object...all remotly from earth...in color, back more than 30 years ago. I've been camera operator for more than 25 years now and nobody can be so precise on cue like this, certaintly not with a remote camera with 1.3 second of delay off operation. www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17v_1880127.mpg
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Nov 14, 2005 21:14:23 GMT -4
The only thing perfect about it, the only thing that could be known precisely ahead of time.
He's a little slow, it's halfway to the edge of the screen before it starts panning, and he nearly loses it off the top half way through the clip.
At this point it is ascending nearly straight up, very small angular changes as seen from the landing site, so controlling the camera directly off the monitor is reasonably close even with the delay, but it's still bobbling around and almost goes out at the corner.
The liftoff profile was pretty well predefined, the angles and resulting joystick motions easily calculated to cover the first 20 seconds or so, and simulated several times. The operator did a great job under the circumstances, but it hardly qualifies as a perfect shoot.
|
|
|
Post by gadou on Nov 14, 2005 21:34:33 GMT -4
How these electric camera head, zoom lens, powerfull transmitter and transmitter operate by battery could operate so smothly at those low temperature when we still have problem in cold weather here in 2005. My question is much more about the technology that existed at that time to broadcast live from the moon than how the shoot looklike. You're not broadcasting from the street corner and we're talking about technology with poor result at that time, I'm still perplex...
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 14, 2005 21:38:14 GMT -4
Here is an 80-page interview with Ed Fendell, the guy who designed the remote-control system, developed the procedures for using it, and operated it during all 3 mission in which it was used. He tells you how he got around the problem of the time delay. The astronaut was instructed to park the Lunar Rover at a specific distance from the LM, and in a specific direction (almost directly behind it). Focusing was not a problem, the camera had great depth-of-focus, and it was set on infinity. The upward accelleration was known, so they knew just how fast the camera would need to pan up to follow it (this wasn't like a soccer game, where a cameraman doesn't know which way the action will be going from moment to moment). Ed knew exactly when the LM would lift-off. When the count-down got down to "Three", he ordered the camera to zoom-out and tilt-up. (Ed's discussion of the camera begins on page 55. Note the amount of time he spent on training before the missions.) Can you guess why the Apollo 17 footage is so popular? Because it is nearly perfect, but they only got it right on the third try. On Apollo 15, there was a problem with the design of the tilt mechanism, and it was prone to jamming, so they just left the camera still. The LM flew up out of the frame. On Apollo 16, the mechanism was redesigned, but the astronauts parked the rover at the wrong distance from the LM. Thus Ed's tilt command was at the wrong rate to follow the LM. Only on Apollo 17 did everything go right.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 14, 2005 21:39:17 GMT -4
Not only that, gadou, but watch how fast the ascent module takes off. This is 1/6 gravidity and it took off like a rocket. I think it should've been a slower ascent just like it was a slow descent, if it were real.
Also, watch the ascent video clip from Apollo 14. The moon men are filming the American flag from a window. The flag was planted in the moon dust by hand, down maybe 6 or 8 inches. Once they lift off you can see the flag pole bend over almost 45 degrees yet it remained planted in the moon dust.
I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 14, 2005 21:42:45 GMT -4
the ascent module . . . took off like a rocket. Tell me I didn't just read that.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 14, 2005 21:46:23 GMT -4
How these electric camera head, zoom lens, powerfull transmitter and transmitter operate by battery could operate so smothly at those low temperature when we still have problem in cold weather here in 2005. My question is much more about the technology that existed at that time to broadcast live from the moon than how the shoot looklike. You're not broadcasting from the street corner and we're talking about technology with poor result at that time, I'm still perplex... Not only that, gadou, but the moon men were on the move in the rover, covering 20 kms or more one time, and and yet they were still able to send video footage back. Impossible. There were next to no satellite in space in 69-72, and even if there were, they still could not be sending footage back while on the move.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 14, 2005 21:46:50 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, gadou.
Real or not, I'm quite septical by this perfect shoot, done with a remote control camera from earth with a pefectly timming zoom-out just on the fire engine, following by a perfect tilt-up and ending with a zoom-in on the object...all remotly from earth...in color, back more than 30 years ago.
Not perfect, as explained by others. Just good enough, with practice.
I've been camera operator for more than 25 years now and nobody can be so precise on cue like this, certaintly not with a remote camera with 1.3 second of delay off operation.
Are you a professional camera operator? Because frankly I have a hard time believing a professional cameraman could believe such a thing.
As to timing, I've seen firsthand the kind of timing skilled people are capable of in the space program. I'm not surprised Ed Fendell was able to capture the takeoff pretty well (not "perfectly") on the third try.
Also, in your next post you say: My question is much more about the technology that existed at that time to broadcast live from the moon than how the shoot looklike.
So first you say the camera operator is incompetent to make such a shot, then you say it's the technology your skeptical about. Are you doubtful about both, or just the technology?
You're not broadcasting from the street corner and we're talking about technology with poor result at that time, I'm still perplex...
"Technology with poor results"? What exactly do you mean? Electric motors weren't advanced enough by the early 1970s? Please specify.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 14, 2005 21:47:47 GMT -4
the ascent module . . . took off like a rocket. Tell me I didn't just read that. Yup you did.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 14, 2005 21:48:17 GMT -4
So let me just see if I've got this straight. NASA is going to fake the moon landings. Now, the obvious thing to do is to spend $50 at Radio Shack and put together some kind of motor driving camera mount that pans upward at about the same speed that the fake model LM is going to be pulled upward on a string, then put a guy in a sound room and rig it up so that he's listening to the fake takeoff countdown on a delay, just as if the astronauts were really on the moon, which obviously they are not. Then you tell the guy, "ok when you hear the astronaut-actor start his countdown, just push the red button marked, 'pan camera upward' ok? Cool."
So, rather than do that, which compared to the rest of the hoax would have been easy, rather than do that simple, obvious thing, you're suggesting that NASA just had a dude with a camera film the fake model rocket LM? That's your big conspiracy theory? That's it?
So NASA, who was able to fool millions of actual smart people, hundreds of scientists with PhDs and enough brain power to eclipse the Sun, NASA, this steely convert evil organization, who also probably had to kill the cameraman and bury his body in the Astrodome, NASA got away with all that, but then, oh crap! They got lazy and just had a guy film the fake liftoff. And nobody who was there in the room while they were faking it was as smart as you and could say, "hey nobody's going to believe this." Well shucks. I guess they had had a really long day and they just got lazy. Good catch! Obviously the whole thing was a hoax.
Or maybe, just maybe, since you know exactly how fast the LM is going to rise, and since you know exactly how far away the highly trained and well-paid astronauts are going to place the camera. Maybe, just maybe, if we put our heads together, we can make use of our high-school trigonometry book and design a motor that pans upward at exactly the right speed. And maybe, if we think real hard, we can figure out what the transmission delay is from the Moon to the Earth and know in advance when we need to push the big red button marked, "pan camera upward." Maybe that could be it. What do you think?
Hmm. Multi-billion dollar conspiracy that fools everybody on the planet including people a heck of a lot smarter than your or I, but is so sloppy they film the takeoff with a standard movie camera - OR - high-school physics and high-school trigonomety and a cheap drive motor you could build in shop class. Hmm. Yeah, that's a tough one.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 14, 2005 21:55:20 GMT -4
Hey Moon Man, you ever coming back to your debate thread?
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 14, 2005 21:55:33 GMT -4
So NASA, who was able to fool millions of actual smart people, hundreds of scientists with PhDs... NASA is going to spent 1 trillion $ to go to mars to see if there is life. We already know there is no life on mars. Obtaing a PhD cost roughly 100,000 $. Does it make much sense to spend a trillion $ to find out something we already know or would we learn more by training 1 million more TAX PAYING scientists here on earth..?
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 14, 2005 21:57:04 GMT -4
Hey Moon Man, you ever coming back to your debate thread? I've been working on it all day. I need a brief break from the research. Gives me a head ache reading. I'm almost done the battery issue though.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 14, 2005 22:05:08 GMT -4
MOON MAN What the heck are you doing here?? Get your butt back over to your debate thread. You remember the debate thread, don't you? Your own personal thread, that the moderator was kind enough to make, just for you, where you're the king of town and left the proclamation that none shall post until you are finished. It was even made sticky just for you.
Shouldn't you be working on your magnum opus? Shouldn't you be crafting your great thesis which will shake the storied halls of established wisdom right to its very core? Shouldn't you be laboring day and night to bring the light of truth and reason to we, the intellectual proletariat? What are you waiting for?
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 14, 2005 22:10:50 GMT -4
I need a brief break from the research. Ah research. The process whereby one collects data to support one's preconceived opinions, discarding any pesky data, no matter how weighty, that might contradict those opinions. Wait, no, I don't think that's right.
|
|