|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:12:42 GMT -4
QUOTE JayUtah: You say you're a DP. Many of us are photographers and can speak at an informed level about your specific concerns. I haven't taken a real close look at very many. Some of the ones I looked at, after researching these guys like JW, and after reading some of the explanations on these forums and other places, the reasons given by people like you are mainly correct, in my opinion. But I did get a few and blew them up in photoshop and really had a serious look in the black areas. I didn't care about the footprints or the subject matter, and I found it curious that you could see where someone intentially pixled over the black areas. The square pixles are very clear to see. Was wondering why this was done? Do you know what I'm talking about? If you got those pictures off the net its most likely artefacts of the conversion process involved in converting the original material to a compatible format. You can see this for yourself if you load a hi res image into a paint program and convert it into a JPEG, especially if you choose to compress it to a high degree. I do 3D rendering and and when I'm prepping pictures for uploading I have to convert to JPEGS and sometime blocks of pixels appear that were never in the original image. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Jul 20, 2009 16:25:39 GMT -4
Could it not be anti-aliasing covering areas of subtle colour differences? I'm not anything like the expert in DP that Jay is, but I do know how confusing extreme enlargements of even very sharp-looking features of DPs are.
And when you say you blew them up, I'm assuming they were JPEGs off the Web? Could they be JPEG artifacts?
|
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 16:28:18 GMT -4
Fair enough. I did get them over the net. Only in some areas? Some of black looks a shade grayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:46:00 GMT -4
Fair enough. I did get them over the net. Only in some areas? Some of black looks a shade grayer. Yeah defintely sounds like artefacts. JPEG compression will do this, nice clean black lines will magically acquire grey fuzzy edges. You can do it yourself in Photoshop, just open a blank image, draw some black lines, save as a JPEG and then open in a pictures viewer. Your neat lines will have spread out and become fuzzy. |
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 20, 2009 17:02:35 GMT -4
But I did get a few and blew them up in photoshop and really had a serious look in the black areas. I didn't care about the footprints or the subject matter, and I found it curious that you could see where someone intentially pixled over the black areas. The square pixles are very clear to see. Was wondering why this was done? Do you know what I'm talking about? One thing you have to keep in mind is that the images you and others are looking at are typically several generations removed from the film originals. Original scans are rarely if ever done straight to .jpg images since the fidelity of even low compression or "lossless" .jpg's is sketchy at best. When the original scans are converted to .jpg's for reproduction on the internet, compression artifacts - the "pixelated areas" you mention - are nearly unavoidable, especially in large dark areas. These effects only appear worse when the image is magnified. Unfortunately, most hoax believers either fail to take that into account due to lack of understanding / knowledge or purposely ignore it completely when producing their "evidence" of forgery. Also unfortunately, the original films of these images are locked away for preservation and can't be looked at by the general public, adding to the "mystique" of the subject. There are high quality reproductions available, but I think you'll find that most theories put forward by the die-hard HB's do not use actual physical objects as evidence, but rather they tend to rely on more nebulous things like .jpg images and highly compressed videos, usually on YouTube. Edited to add...Man... I need to learn to type faster... or stop posting from work where the phone keeps distracting me...  Cz |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 20, 2009 17:04:42 GMT -4
But I did get a few and blew them up in photoshop and really had a serious look in the black areas. I didn't care about the footprints or the subject matter, and I found it curious that you could see where someone intentially [sic] pixled [sic] over the black areas. The square pixles [sic] are very clear to see. Was wondering why this was done? Do you know what I'm talking about? Some pictures had minor artistic alterations made when they were published in newspapers and magazines. This is an example from Apollo 11: history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903history.html |
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 20, 2009 17:15:17 GMT -4
Fair enough. I did get them over the net. Only in some areas? Some of black looks a shade grayer. I've seen various artefacts in the apollo negs that have scanned into a digital format. There have been a couple with hideous jpeg artefacting, this especially shows up badly when someone tweaks the gamma to prove a point, even worse when it's been recompressed or resized or both. Scanning from high contrast neg while preserving detail in dark areas is notorious for "greying up" dead blacks, it's the price you pay for not losing that detail in the shadows I guess, and at least you lose less detail that way. I've seen that in a couple of rolls, the "first generation scan" if you will. The other problem I've seen is going the other way, clipping anything below a low threshold to a digital dead black when the settings weren't perfect. Again it looked fine on the normal print but showed up as soon as the gamma was tweaked, and wasn't there in the primary scan of the original neg, someone had upped the contrast to make the image look better. All of these problems have varied with different versions of the same picture depending on who has been fiddling with it in the meantime. I hate jpeg compression. |
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 20, 2009 17:36:37 GMT -4
Hang on, I've heard that story before somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 17:56:16 GMT -4
Thanks all. Good points.
You've heard this story somewhere before? I swear this really happened to me.
I'm not really interested in debating these conspiracy dudes or the believers, I have no proof, I'm not a scientist, I'm researching a character and found this web site quite compelling. I sent a private message to someone on this board re:costs to pull something like this off. He can post parts of it if he wants. But basically, faking this would have been impossible.
I don't care what anyone says.
I'm really curious about the minds of these people, like my Uncle, how they can give out information to the public without really checking the facts. It's easy for a film maker to put in one side of the story. And people are sheep. Instead of debating on film, a responsible film maker would do the opposite. Show both arguments and let the viewer decide for him/herself.
Thanks to all of you, believers or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 20, 2009 18:36:30 GMT -4
I haven't taken a real close look at very many. Some of the ones I looked at, after researching these guys like JW, and after reading some of the explainations on these forums and other places, the reasons given by people like you are mainly correct, in my opinion. But I did get a few and blew them up in photoshop and really had a serious look in the black areas. I didn't care about the footprints or the subject matter, and I found it curious that you could see where someone intentially pixled over the black areas. The square pixles are very clear to see. Was wondering why this was done? Do you know what I'm talking about? JPEG artifacts, perhaps? Can you tell us what specific images you blew up in this fashion? |
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 18:43:20 GMT -4
Sure: Happy to do it. I took about 50 from NASA. Here is one I found curious. The black space has some strange things going on. There is a tube effect and some of the other pixels looked filled in. I'm just wondering what caused it. Get the photo here: tinyurl.com/npcwxt(fixed your link - LunarOrbit) |
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 19:02:45 GMT -4
Thank you LunarOrbit
|
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 20, 2009 19:26:06 GMT -4
Sure: Happy to do it. I took about 50 from NASA. Here is one I found curious. The black space has some strange things going on. There is a tube effect and some of the other pixels looked filled in. I'm just wondering what caused it. Get the photo here: tinyurl.com/npcwxt(fixed your link - LunarOrbit) That link seems to lead to an audio file rather than a photo. Do you have the pictures ID so it can be looked up elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 20, 2009 19:33:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 20, 2009 19:37:42 GMT -4
Wow that is weird. It must have been something in the translation when LunarOrbit corrected my link (i'm not blaming anyone, perhaps I screwed up in copying the link). But, I clicked on the link and I saw the same thing you saw. However, when you click the link, I believe the info on the left of screen is the description of the photo. Also, once I downloaded it was a zip file and I opened it. I could give it to you, but i think that you won't trust the zip file or the fact that I may have re-touched the photo. I clearly understand this. When I un-zipped the file it gave me a file number of 13751.
Does this help?
P.S. thanks laurel!!
|
|
