|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2008 11:40:50 GMT -4
Definition of panning...Ambiguously defined on a still photography web site, not as the term has been used precisely in cinematography for 100 years. The term "pan" is short for "panorama." I'd like to see you try to create one of those without rotating the camera. Here's an example of the technique from my own portfiolio. It was created by rotating the camera to track the boys on the swing with a long shutter speed. i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/SEIMG_1108.jpgI intended to blur the background to achieve two effects: establish the sense of motion, and to render the background indistinct in order to separate it from the foreground and create depth. Now, point out exactly where Jay talks about camera rotation in that quote...Where I use the word "pan" correctly. 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.You create this nonsense. Everyone else seems to have understood the term correctly. You didn't. And you Googled up an irrelevant definition to boot, just so you could perpetuate the "nonsense" in place of actual discussion. You are quite the master of distraction.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 15, 2008 13:02:42 GMT -4
Once again, Turb displays his stunning ability to copy and paste Googled quotes without actually understanding them. [emphasis mine] Now, kindly explain how one can swing a camera without rotating it. Yup, clearly no rotation going on here. Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot on line 3.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2008 13:05:21 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? Several people mentioned camera rotation in some form or another, and a couple people even demonstrated the technique with videos. But who cares? The point is that you left it out of your analysis and it is your analysis and subsequent conclusions that are being critiqued. By failing to recognize the important role that camera rotation plays in the observed effect, your conclusions do not hold up. Turbonium, do you concede that camera movement in some combination of translation and rotation could produce the effect we see in the Apollo 11 video? (I’m not interested in your whining about what other people have said.)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 15, 2008 13:09:18 GMT -4
Pan - rotation about the vertical axis. Tilt - rotation about the horizontal transverse axis. Cant - rotation about the horizontal longitudinal axis. In other words, the perhaps more familiar terms Yaw, Pitch and Roll (respectively) applied to cameras.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2008 13:31:42 GMT -4
Yes -- yaw, pitch, and roll are terms I would use if describing camera rotation to a pilot or sea captain.
Pans are specifically distinct from lateral motion in camera work because of the historical limitations of camera mounts. A pan can be accomplished on nearly any head. A "truck" (lateral movement perpendicular to line of sight) requires a specific truck, dolly, or pedestal configuration. Hence shot-sheets must use the precise terminology so that the dolly grips set everything up right.
I'm currently watching The Matrix Reloaded on TV, which employs several lateral motions in the fight sequences. There are several "truck and pan" shots in the lobby of the Merovingian's lair. These have to be carefully framed in order not to reveal the dolly track over which the truck travels. But the artistic aim is to keep the foreground centered while providing a better sense of setting. In cinematography such truck-pan combinations help establish depth.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 15, 2008 15:05:37 GMT -4
Turbonium, these are the questions we'd like you to address. Not all this back and forth banter about what 'pan' or 'rotate' means.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 15, 2008 20:54:51 GMT -4
Listen, while we're on this major revelation of hoaxery (I mean who'd have thunk that pan and rotate would be the whistle-blow?) let's open the flood gates. NASA and its band of PANs regularly refer to the TV camera "filming" scenes. Well we all know that TV cameras are electronic and don't have any film. Also, NASA and its band of lie-spreading PANs also often refer to the camera "shooting" the scenes. Well, hells bells I don't see no bullets either. We all know a camera is not a gun. If you want hard cold facts exposing the HOAX there it is. Oh yeah, look at the whistle blowers: PAN (pro Apollo Nutter) and pan as in "rotating" the camera. Tell me there's no relation. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 16, 2008 10:56:15 GMT -4
So that leads to my next post...
Would that be the one where you acknowledge that you were wrong, and that several people had discussed rotation of the camera, not just translation of the camera? Or are you going to embarrass yourself even further by refusing to acknowledge that "panning" a camera is the same as rotating it?
Because, really, that was the most spectacular exercise in self-pwnage I may have ever seen.
Oh, by the way, do you acknowledge that the spacecraft was not pointed toward the Moon?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jun 16, 2008 20:12:17 GMT -4
I am not sure if ths has been mentioned, but during docking of any kind, even in earth orbit, the nose of the craft would not be pointing in the direction of travel at all times. This includes( among others) trips to the ISS, and the old Gemini docking missions as well as the Soviet trips to the Mir space station and the ESA Jules Verne resupply vehicle. Now turbonium, are you contending that all these are elaborite hoaxes as well?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 16, 2008 22:26:00 GMT -4
Yes, as far as I can tell, turbonium has so far in this thread acknowledged only his error regarding the angular size of the Earth vs. a 9" window. He hasn't acknowledged that the CSM stack was not pointing at the Moon during the PAO event, but rather was in the PTC roll attitude but with PTC roll suspended. That's quite apart from the latest follies with his claims about the apparent motion of the Earth, or the embarrassing bit where he was insisting that people weren't really talking about an angular movement of the camera.
Edit: I missed the post where turbonium acknowledged his error regarding spacecraft attitude - see next post.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jun 17, 2008 1:06:20 GMT -4
Yes, as far as I can tell, turbonium has so far in this thread acknowledged only his error regarding the angular size of the Earth vs. a 9" window. He hasn't acknowledged that the CSM stack was not pointing at the Moon during the PAO event, but rather was in the PTC roll attitude but with PTC roll suspended. Well, he did post this... It is possible that the GET 30:28 telecast was sent with the PTC roll stopped, in order to facilitate orienting the high-gain antenna array. However, stopping PTC does not involve changing the spacecraft orientation from its nose-down attitude. Do you nevertheless concede that a spacecraft need not point its nose in the direction of travel? I'm fine with that. But the three different windows with a view of "Earth", and the moving "Earth" - those are my main problems. That could be taken as an admission that he is conceding the argument about the CSM stack's attitude. Cz
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 17, 2008 7:20:11 GMT -4
Debating someone who can cite a quote about swinging a camera and not under stand it meant rotating it especially when there was an accompanying gif showing the camera rotating is truly futile. Ditto him not grocking that saying the camera angle had changed could refer to rotation as well.
Though it is tempting to think so I don’t believe he is a troll or an idiot, it’s just that like so many CT he suffers from extreme cognitive dissonance
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jun 17, 2008 9:22:47 GMT -4
Not all this back and forth banter about what 'pan' or 'rotate' means. I guess that means he is going to pick up the "race" issue...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 17, 2008 9:58:55 GMT -4
Well, he did post this... I'm fine with that. But the three different windows with a view of "Earth", and the moving "Earth" - those are my main problems. That could be taken as an admission that he is conceding the argument about the CSM stack's attitude. Cz Agreed, and my post marked up accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 21, 2008 1:55:24 GMT -4
Several people mentioned camera rotation in some form or another, and a couple people even demonstrated the technique with videos. But who cares? The point is that you left it out of your analysis and it is your analysis and subsequent conclusions that are being critiqued. By failing to recognize the important role that camera rotation plays in the observed effect, your conclusions do not hold up. As I see it, panning and rotation were not being presented as one and the same, throughout much of this discussion . But I agree that it's not relevant as to who said this, or who meant that, etc. So to move along... Turbonium, do you concede that camera movement in some combination of translation and rotation could produce the effect we see in the Apollo 11 video? It can't be ruled out as possible, but I find it extremely improbable. This sequence is a good example... Three consecutive stills, in which time the "Earth" vanishes, while the window frame remains in the same position. Note how quickly the "Earth" vanishes in the second window, in the clip below (sorry for the flying agifs)... If you claim this effect was achieved entirely by camera movement (panning, etc.) then I'd like to know how, exactly. A bulky, hand-held video camera, being jerked around to and fro by a floating astronaut inside a very cramped capsule. Yet for a fraction of a second, he simultaneously moves and pans (or tilts/or rotates) the camera, while the window frame, etc. remains in the exact same position throughout. He achieved this effect twice. The "Earth" vanishes a little slower from the first window, and there is a slight change in position of the window frame during the sequence. There is another problem. In the clip, notice how large the "Earth" has become, when they show the first window again. The stills below show the "Earth" in the first window, then in the second window, and once again back in the first window.... It's not due to zooming the camera, so why is the "Earth" so large in the third still?
|
|