|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 17, 2007 11:44:14 GMT -4
When I talked to some of the grips who worked on From the Earth to the Moon they said they had to "bag" the camera at times to keep the aerosolized dust out of it. So even if you say they punted on the realism, there is the practical aspect of filmmaking in a dusty environment. Come on, Rocky, tell us why they didn't use washed and sifted sand you say they could have obtained.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 17, 2007 16:31:44 GMT -4
How far filmmaking has slipped then....an unnamed team of amateurs and military people could make dust-free shots in 1969, but the best studios of today can't seem to manage it on their big-budget films. Heck, they can't get good-looking lunar soil for a two-minute clip -- but the boys in 1969 could work their magic for hundreds of hours!
They've also slipped in their low-gravity effects. Off the top of your head, how many movies can you mention where they didn't even try to simulate low gravity (starting with 2001)?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 17, 2007 16:51:04 GMT -4
And really, since no one had ever been to the moon before they could have just made the surface as hard as cement with no loose dust to be kicked up at all and we wouldn't have know the difference. That would have been much easier than trying to fake the behaviour of dust in 1/6th gravity and zero atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2007 16:52:54 GMT -4
Yeah, if they had faked it NASA could just have said "Oh, well to hell with dust we're gonna make it cemented, nobody will know anyways".
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Jun 17, 2007 17:04:52 GMT -4
Cinders would have been my choice. From the Lunar Volcanoes, you know.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 17, 2007 17:06:30 GMT -4
Maybe they hadn't thought of it. Maybe it would have been too expensive to do. They weren't trying to fool anybody; maybe they just didn't think it was important enough. Are you saying that the fact that they didn't sift and wash some sand to make it dust-free to make a movie means that it's impossible to make sand dust-free? You people are really making yourselves look silly by insisting that it's impossible to treat sand to make it dust-free. If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they could come up with a way to make sand dust-free.
I went four pages back and the only time the word magical was used was to talk about dust.
Why did you refer to it as doing my legwork? My position is that if you do the calculations, you're prove yourselves wrong--that's why you don't just do them. If you do some bogus calculations, the viewers with science backgrounds will see it. You're between a rock and a hard place so you just keep insisting that I do them. The trajectory is obviously non-parabolic. Calculations are only necessary if it's not obvious. I'd have to find a calculus book and find the formula. I'd have to find a cybercafe that has a color printer. I'd have to print out several frames of the video at about one euro per frame. If I put my mind to doing it, I suppose I could do the calculations but it would entail several hours and I'd have to ask several people for help. If you're insisting on mathematical proof of something that's aready obvious because it's so far off from what it should be, it's just a diversionary tactic. The viewers can see the footage and decide for themselves. They don't need anyone to tell them what they see.
If I click on the play/pause button fast, I can see it in slow-motion. I can follow a section of the dirt starting at the 23 second mark; it slows down and just falls--it deviates from the parabolic trajectory that it would have followed in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 17, 2007 17:15:13 GMT -4
You people are really making yourselves look silly by insisting that it's impossible to treat sand to make it dust-free. If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they could come up with a way to make sand dust-free.
No, the only one looking silly is you because you are merely claiming that it can without any proof whatsoever, other then you claiming it can be. You have even admitted that you have never tried to do it, but you still insist that it can be done. This is like saying that you can walk across your ceiling like a fly, you've never tried to do it, but you know you can and anyone that says you can't is being silly.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Jun 17, 2007 17:28:51 GMT -4
If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they could come up with a way to land on the moon!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 17, 2007 17:31:51 GMT -4
If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they could come up with a way to land on the moon!no, no, no, they could do anything they liked with that unlimited budget except landing on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 17, 2007 17:39:50 GMT -4
Rocky, I'm really curious why NASA would use a dusty surface for the setting of their allegedly faked moon landings. Can you explain it? If no one had ever seen the surface of the moon they could make it look any way they wanted, so why wouldn't they go with something that was easy to fake?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 17, 2007 17:50:18 GMT -4
Are you saying that the fact that they didn't sift and wash some sand to make it dust-free to make a movie means that it's impossible to make sand dust-free? No, we're saying the fact that nobody (this means you) has actually demonstrated that it's possible means that it's impossible. ...actually send men to the moon. Because it's your claim. Then you do the calculations and prove us wrong! You mean, the viewers with science backgrounds whom already all disagree with you? Point out a single dust particle in the video with a non-parabolic trajectory. Wrong. No printing or monetary expenditure is necessary to answer Bob's questions in post #213Our sincere apologies for asking you to invest a few hours and employ the help of "several" other people to support your claim that the work of thousands of people over the course of a decade or so was a complete lie. Then point it out. I can follow a pink unicorn across that same scene if I don't have to actually point out where it is to anyone.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 17, 2007 17:51:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 17, 2007 17:55:35 GMT -4
You people are really making yourselves look silly by insisting that it's impossible to treat sand to make it dust-free. If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they could come up with a way to make sand dust-free. If they put their minds to it they could come up with a way to go to the moon. You made the claim about the dirt following a non-parabolic trajectory. Your burden of proof. Our position is exactly the same, with the added part that you don't know how to do them despite saying you had way back near the start of this thread. You can't provide the evidence so you insist we are wrong for asking you to do so. It is not obvious at all. It is not obvious that what we see is actually even supposed to be parabolic, for the reasons I already gave: specifically that you are looking at a cluster of particles all following different trajectories. That is the biggest point you consistently and deliberately refuse to acknowledge. If you or we do the calculations we may well find a non-parabolic trajectory, but you haven't actually demonstrated that you even understand that that migth be perfectly normal because you can't follow the trajectory of a single particle in that video. In which case this entire thread, and your arguments, are pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 17, 2007 17:57:52 GMT -4
And there's someone with the same uninformed misconception about exactly what he is looking at as you have. So what? Answer yes or no: do you understand that the only reason you see any of the dust thrown up is because it is clustered densely enough to appear on the film? Answer yes or no: Do you understand that you cannot see any single particle on which you can perform the relevant calculations to show what its trajectory actually is?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 17, 2007 17:59:22 GMT -4
Here's somebody who sees what I see. And he's wrong, too.
|
|