|
Post by dwight on Jul 2, 2011 0:52:04 GMT -4
OK, I get a response to a YT post I made ages ago. Apparently, the slow scan converter used for the Apollo 11 EVA was never used at all. The ghosting effect caused by the perstsent phosphor on the 10" monitor is really a glass sheet which the TV camera crew stood behind during the taping of the EVA. The lens artifacts we see are not really that, but the reflections of the crew members. Oh yes, apparently now the clearly readable coke bottle soda bottle now rolls floats through the scene. Prepare to be dazzled. The video is really really really good. Beware the responses from the usual crackpots is adult only reading. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQgWzAXjb4k
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 2, 2011 4:59:04 GMT -4
Warning: Hunchbacked is the owner of the video. Reality not found error....
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 2, 2011 6:56:10 GMT -4
Oh, is it worth wasting bandwidth on?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 2, 2011 7:35:57 GMT -4
Yeah it is if you want to shake your head in disbelief at how some people think. I figured out early on the Hunchbacked was a wolf in sheep's clothing. He starts out all objective reporter-ish, but quickly reveals his true colours the second you offer an explanation that may, just may, prove an element of Apollo worked the way officially claimed.
Curious how none of them want to pick up an old tube TV camera from a flea market and do the simple burn-in test. How pathetic is it to avoid conducting an experiment so as to avoid risking your house of cards to come crashing down. What are they afraid of?
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 2, 2011 10:37:09 GMT -4
Yeah it is if you want to shake your head in disbelief at how some people think. I figured out early on the Hunchbacked was a wolf in sheep's clothing. He starts out all objective reporter-ish, but quickly reveals his true colours the second you offer an explanation that may, just may, prove an element of Apollo worked the way officially claimed. Curious how none of them want to pick up an old tube TV camera from a flea market and do the simple burn-in test. How pathetic is it to avoid conducting an experiment so as to avoid risking your house of cards to come crashing down. What are they afraid of? Can you elaborate on the burn-in thing.......didn't they do this on Earth? What effect would it cause?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 2, 2011 11:27:49 GMT -4
I could show them my old home videos that my Dad shot on a Betamax camera in the early 1980s. Our 1982 Christmas video looks like we were a family of ghosts.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 2, 2011 20:35:07 GMT -4
My DVDs of the first season of "Saturday Night Live" show ghosting every time something bright (such as a stage light) moves across the image.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 3, 2011 0:11:49 GMT -4
Can you elaborate on the burn-in thing.......didn't they do this on Earth? What effect would it cause? Sure, no problem: burn-in is from the days of analog tv cameras, which used pickup tubes rather than CCD image sensors. With such cameras, if you pointed them at high contrast scenes and moved in front of them, you would appear to be transparent for a few seconds. The Apollo 11 TV signal, being slow scan (thus having the same frame repeated two more times to make it compatible with standard NTSC) enhanced the burn-in effect, making the astronauts appear transparent. The nearest nieghbor this effect has can be seen on 1970's live TV shows where the lights in shot leave a comet tail if the camera pans past them. This is because the bright light burns an image momentarily into the sensor. The mishap of the Apollo 12 TV camera is directly due to burn-in as Al Bean pointed the camera at the sun. Being several hundred times brighter than a studio light, the sun actually physically damaged the sensor plate.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 3, 2011 0:20:38 GMT -4
We used to have an old security camera as stage monitor. It ghosted at the best of times. When the conditions were right, someone could walk halfway across the stage before they even appeared on screen, and then mostly as a streak that lingered for up to fifteen seconds after they'd left.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 3, 2011 0:51:31 GMT -4
Sssssshhhh!!!! If the hoaxers hear that, their world will cave in. I'm sure you meant to say "the camera gave crystal clear images with no lag or burn in under all lighting conditions."
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 3, 2011 6:26:58 GMT -4
People get so used to modern technology. They think it has always existed, or if it hasn't, that the things we do with it now were simply impossible before.
With today's tiny, inexpensive, robust and high quality CCD color cameras, it's hard for some people to look at old Apollo TV recordings and photos and remember that those cameras were very much the bleeding edge of the art at the time. They had to be specially developed for Apollo because standard broadcast TV cameras were huge monstrosities without a prayer of fitting into a spacecraft. Film was still the recording medium of choice.
Same with electronic storage devices. Dwight's avatar shows what looks like an early piece of broadcast TV equipment, possibly part of a video tape recorder (VTR). I used to operate a somewhat later model (RCA TR70B) during summers in the mid 1970s to earn money for college tuition. They were about as tall as I am and the width of an office desk. They required 3-phase AC power plus a centralized compressed air supply. They could record up to 2 hours of standard definition video on huge (by today's standards) reels of 2" wide tape weighing perhaps 10 kg each. They emitted a loud whine (though you'd get used to it) and required constant cleaning, adjustment and maintenance.
Now I can record far more and at higher quality on the hard drive in my laptop, which runs on a few tens of watts for thousands of hours without maintenance. At the time it often didn't seem like technology was moving as fast as it could, but when I look back at it now...wow.
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Jul 3, 2011 9:08:58 GMT -4
People get so used to modern technology. They think it has always existed, or if it hasn't, that the things we do with it now were simply impossible before. Yep. Can you imagine the face of my youngest brother's son of 14, watching me operating the Icom R71, tuning into CW and writing down 16wpm from Greece?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 4, 2011 16:21:53 GMT -4
The age at which you can be an old fart is constantly dropping. In computing, you can be in your twenties and still be able to shock the youngsters with "My first computer had only...."
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 4, 2011 19:25:51 GMT -4
The age at which you can be an old fart is constantly dropping. In computing, you can be in your twenties and still be able to shock the youngsters with "My first computer had only...." That sounds like a challenge!
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 6, 2011 18:14:15 GMT -4
Yep. Can you imagine the face of my youngest brother's son of 14, watching me operating the Icom R71, tuning into CW and writing down 16wpm from Greece? Probably something like the faces of my non-geek sisters (I have no brothers) if they had watched me operate CW even way back in 1972...
|
|