|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 15, 2008 3:35:38 GMT -4
Oh, please turbonium. For a start, Jay does indeed talk about camera rotation in the very quote you cite. Read it again, and look up the definition of "pan" .
Secondly, the other posters didn't "ignore" the panning element - they simply didn't mention it specifically. "Moving the camera" in no way implies that only lateral motion is involved.
Thirdly, is the irony of your post picking over everyone's comments and highlighting supposed inconsistencies appearing on the very same page as a discussion of how this is a common and erroneous strategy of some HBs completely lost on you?
Are you ever going to get around to answering sts60's questions?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 15, 2008 3:53:32 GMT -4
This is obviously a trolling exercise, it's too stupid to be anything else! I suspect you're right. Turbonium's claims defy logic, I can't imagine anyone believing that what he says makes more sense than actually going to the Moon. As I showed in my last post, there was only one person who mentioned camera rotation for several days. Everyone else claimed it was camera movement, or panning/camera movement. But nobody wants to admit to that fact. Turbonium - the resident "CT", was the only one who "ignored" this "critical factor". And that means it's a "trolling exercise"? Sad. This is no way to carry on a mature, rational discussion/debate. This sort of nonsense makes it virtually impossible. It's a shame, because there are people here who are sincere, and simply want to discuss the issues in an honest and mature fashion.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 15, 2008 4:12:40 GMT -4
Oh, please turbonium. For a start, Jay does indeed talk about camera rotation in the very quote you cite. Read it again, and look up the definition of "pan" . Definition of panning... Panning Technique for photographing a moving subject. While the shutter is open, the camera is swung following the moving subject.en.mimi.hu/photography/panning.html Now, point out exactly where Jay talks about camera rotation in that quote... Secondly, the other posters didn't "ignore" the panning element - they simply didn't mention it specifically. Nice try. "Moving the camera" in no way implies that only lateral motion is involved. I didn't say that. Thirdly, is the irony of your post picking over everyone's comments and highlighting supposed inconsistencies appearing on the very same page as a discussion of how this is a common and erroneous strategy of some HBs completely lost on you? There is an endless supply of irony, but I find the vast majority of it is in your camp. Are you ever going to get around to answering sts60's questions? If I don't have to waste so much of my time dealing with this sort of nonsense, I'll be more than happy to address the relevant issues exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 15, 2008 4:19:05 GMT -4
As I showed in my last post, there was only one person who mentioned camera rotation for several days. And as I mentioned above, that is incorrect. Everyone else claimed it was camera movement, or panning/camera movement. What do you think "panning" means? In what way does "moving the camera" specifically imply only lateral and not rotational movement? But nobody wants to admit to that fact. Turbonium - the resident "CT", was the only one who "ignored" this "critical factor". You still are. The only addressing of the camera movement scenario you have made is to reject an attempt to replicate it by saying that it shook too much. That is hardly a detailed rebuttal of the basic premise. And that means it's a "trolling exercise"? Pretty close. The steady tone of many of your posts since your reappearance has been to indulge in constant "he said/she said" irrelevancies. No, you are not the only one, but that hardly vindicates your continuance of it in the light of repeated requests by others for all parties to stop and address the real issues. You know the rules of the board. You have repeatedly ignored requests to back up your assertion that Apollo 8 must have been faked, or to even acknowledge that the requests had been repeated. Instead you are persisting in pursuing an unrelated point about the Apollo 11 broadcast, and are doing so by emphasizing supposed inconsistencies in posted responses rather than show why any of them cannot be valid. Are you here for a meaningful discussion, or just to feed a persecution complex?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 15, 2008 4:21:00 GMT -4
Panning Technique for photographing a moving subject. While the shutter is open, the camera is swung following the moving subject.en.mimi.hu/photography/panning.html Now, point out exactly where Jay talks about camera rotation in that quote... The point where he uses the word "pan". Which means rotating the camera. What am I missing here? Even nicer rebuttal. You seem to be continuing to insist that people were being very specific in their use of the word "move". Sophistry at its best. Or worst. What did you mean by the following, then? As I showed in my last post, there was only one person who mentioned camera rotation for several days. Everyone else claimed it was camera movement, or panning/camera movement. Could you explain a bit more about what the difference between panning and rotation is meant to be? If I don't have to waste so much of my time dealing with this sort of nonsense, I'll be more than happy to address the relevant issues exclusively. There have been repeated requests for you to go back and answer the questions rather than persist in adding to this thread which you started after that point. You are in control of what you post and where,and this thread will still be there when you get back. However much you protest, it certainly looks like you are avoiding answering.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 15, 2008 5:28:48 GMT -4
Along with everyone else here (save one) who ignored camera rotation, you mean? Sigh! Yet again Turbonium shows his inability to understand our posts and again gets it wrong. I count four people who specifically didn't ignore camera rotation. ONEPerhaps it's also explained by simply moving the camera to the right and at the same time rotating it (the front of the lens) to the left. Hell, I've done that hundreds of times. It has the effect of moving a background object out of frame to the right. Try it sometime -- you don't even need a camera. Any tube-like object or your hands cupped around your eyes will do the trick. TWOThe camera clearly moves to the right but also pans commensurately leftward in order to keep the window frame in roughly the same position in the frame. THREEIndeed. Aldrin is holding the camera in his hand, is floating in zero gravity, and has the camera zoomed in, It really is not beyond the realms of possibility that a slight movement of the camera in any combination of three axes can occur sufficient to shift the relative positions of window and Earth in the frame such that Earth is blocked by the edge of the window. FOUR…there's quite some change in perspective of that reflection. Just the change of perspective expected from a camera moving slightly to the right while panning to the left. And, as Cavorite put it: ...the other posters didn't "ignore" the panning element - they simply didn't mention it specifically. "Moving the camera" in no way implies that only lateral motion is involved.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 15, 2008 6:07:19 GMT -4
I have seen camera men/women working off the shoulder rotate (with a side step) many a time. Sometimes to get the subject of the interview or news article into shot at the right moment for the reporter, sometimes to avoid the usual people who lark around behind trying to get on TV.
Turbonium. Working off the shoulder means no sticks. That is no tripod. Another method of pan. Seeing as an 1 minute 30 interview can take 10 minutes or so to do whether live or not, there is a lot of shuffling around by the camera operator up until the cue for on air or taping as live. You can see how the camera moves with respect no tripod.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2008 7:02:10 GMT -4
Up to this point, there was only one brief mention of camera rotation, in a post by kiwi. Everyone else who had posted on this issue ignored it, although phantomwolf then claimed two others had also mentioned it... Panning to the left while moving to the right is camera rotation. As Kiwi pointed out, four people mentioned it.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 15, 2008 7:20:08 GMT -4
Re my last post. I should have added that this is something that can be seen in everyday use on quite a few occasions. It does depend on the story etc by can be verified independent of my claim.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 15, 2008 7:23:42 GMT -4
Turbonium, get back to the point. It doesn't matter who said what about camera rotation/panning (yes, they ARE the same thing, you're just trying to make an argument out of the use or not of one of those words, regardless of synonyms, definitions, etc., which seems distressingly common in your postings). The point is that it is a factor you ignored, and YOU are the one making the argument that what you see in the video is impossible to achive with camera movement alone.
Do you maintain that camera rotation cannot have occurred?
Do you maintain that camera rotation cannot cause the effect seen?
Do you maintain that there cannot be a line of sight to the Earth out of multiple windows?
Can you explain why a projected Earth would be moving around any more than a real one?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 15, 2008 8:45:59 GMT -4
So Turbonium has the time to pick select quotes from numerous people out of a 11 page thread... but he still doesn't have time to answer 3 or 4 questions. Welcome back, turbonium: 1. What exactly prevented Apollo 8 from going to the Moon?
2. Exactly when and how was this problem or set of problems discovered to be insurmountable?
3. What specific evidence do you have for the existence of this problem?Not quotes mined from 1958 articles. Not recent articles which talk about the hazards of long-duration missions. Not handwaving claims about other launch vehicles. What specifically was discovered, and when, that kept Apollo 8 from leaving Earth orbit, and what is the specific evidence for it? [ Apollo 8 was tracked on its translunar trajectory by observers in Hawaii, the continental United States, the UK, France, and Spain, as well as by the Soviet Union (thanks, PhantomWolf).]
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 15, 2008 8:55:44 GMT -4
Not if there is simultaneous rotation of the camera. You are ignoring the critical factor of camera rotation. By assuming translation only, your analysis of the video is incomplete and flawed. Along with everyone else here (save one) who ignored camera rotation, you mean? How about you explain to me how my failure to mention the panning/rotation changes the fact that it is clearly visible in the footage. I didn't mention it... and fully admit I didn't notice it. I gave you an incomplete answer, and the others expanded on it. Now explain to us why the complete explanation you have been given is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 15, 2008 9:17:12 GMT -4
While on the topic of irony, did anyone else notice that Turbo posted a picture of a camera rotating back and forth all while claiming that panning doesn't mean rotation?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 15, 2008 10:57:19 GMT -4
As the famous Fred Flinstone used to say, "Oh, boy."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2008 10:57:58 GMT -4
Along with everyone else here (save one) who ignored camera rotation, you mean?
Mentioned in my first post on the subject.
Perhaps you (and some others) need to be reminded of that fact...
Maybe, in all your studies of photographic analysis techniques, you should have learned the industry-standard terms for camera rotation.
Pan - rotation about the vertical axis. Tilt - rotation about the horizontal transverse axis. Cant - rotation about the horizontal longitudinal axis.
"Truck left, pan right" and its reciprocal are classic cinematography used to establish more of what's in the background without losing focus on the foreground. Guess how it manages to do that, geometrically speaking? Exactly in the same way that's being done accidentally in this Apollo shot.
Now kindly stop whining about how badly you've been treated and finally deal with the argument I presented to you nearly a week ago.
|
|