|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 18, 2011 18:10:39 GMT -4
This might be a dumb question, but I was thinking about the slow motion film theory today. Whether Apollo was hoax or not (I believe it was not hoaxed), the film was recorded using a camera at x FPS. If it was slowed down, it would not be too difficult to measure the time between successive frames and determine the new frame rate of the slowed down film (y FPS). Would y stick out like a sore thumb to anyone with any degree of expertise? Would it not be odd that y might be fractional or a rate that is not used in any known video technology? This is not my field, but I would have thought such an analysis would have blown apart the argument. As I said, this is probably a dumb question. If it is, then I'll....
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Aug 18, 2011 19:08:37 GMT -4
The problem with the slo-mo theory is that pesky colour-wheel in the TV camera. At no point on any Apollo TV transmission do you have anything other than the 2-field frame buffer for each colour. That pretty much killks that theory dead. If you slowed down the sequential footage the colour artefacts would go haywire and be a dead give away.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Aug 18, 2011 19:34:29 GMT -4
The problem with the slo-mo theory is that pesky colour-wheel in the TV camera. At no point on any Apollo TV transmission do you have anything other than the 2-field frame buffer for each colour. That pretty much killks that theory dead. If you slowed down the sequential footage the colour artefacts would go haywire and be a dead give away. I have no idea how that works.....being the expert Dwight, can you elaborate a bit on that?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Aug 18, 2011 19:56:21 GMT -4
Sure. The color wheel delivered the red blue and green colours each consecutive field (of which 60 make up a sencond's worth of image in NTSC). When matrixed together via the disc recorder/frame store these fields were replicated 2 more times to "fill in" the holes where the other two colours were arriving. So each frame of full colour converted Apollo TV signal is composed of two live colour fields along with two delayed (or replayed) fields from the preceeding colour. This is what causes the "confetti" image you see on the LM launch footage. Now, if this NTSC 525/60 singal was slowed down, there would be a noticable artefacting of the colours as they woulkd be strectched over the slo-mo period. say you slowed down the Apollo TV footage by 50%, that would mean that instead of 2 fields of the red channel artefact there would be 4. This is clearly and demonstrably NOT the case on the Apollo TV signal. Does that make any sense (I know I get it but my skills at converting jargon to plain english maybe sorely lacking)?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 18, 2011 20:38:27 GMT -4
DavidC/Cosmored/Rocky suggested that only parts were slow motion. When it was then pointed out that those parts were in hours long unbroken clips he insisted they did the slow motion on the fly completely ignoring the impossibility of choreagraphing a scene like that multiple hours long. Doesn't really apply to this situation but I think about it every time I see something about slow motion in Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 18, 2011 21:39:26 GMT -4
Well, strictly speaking, if one could make a sequential color TV camera with everything (color wheel speed, tube scan rates) sped up by a factor of 2.45 (=sqrt(6)) then you could play it at the normal NTSC frame rate and it would appear at the required 40.8% of real time.
If this camera were then used on an earth set, you'd still have the serious problem that various muscle motions would have to be impossibly fast to come out looking as they do in the Apollo footage. That's the strongest argument against the slo-mo theory.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 19, 2011 3:19:53 GMT -4
Thanks all. Nicely explained dwight.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Aug 19, 2011 6:28:15 GMT -4
Well, strictly speaking, if one could make a sequential color TV camera with everything (color wheel speed, tube scan rates) sped up by a factor of 2.45 (=sqrt(6)) then you could play it at the normal NTSC frame rate and it would appear at the required 40.8% of real time. If this camera were then used on an earth set, you'd still have the serious problem that various muscle motions would have to be impossibly fast to come out looking as they do in the Apollo footage. That's the strongest argument against the slo-mo theory. You also have the problem of explaining how 3rd party acquisition of Apollo TV (at the Bochum Sternwache in Germany) was done using the parameters given by NASA. This was also covered in the press at the time so the possibility of "fiddling" the ressults was not possible.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 19, 2011 21:37:39 GMT -4
You also have the problem of explaining how 3rd party acquisition of Apollo TV (at the Bochum Sternwache in Germany) was done using the parameters given by NASA. Well, a much bigger problem (for the hoaxers) than the TV frame rate is explaining the simple fact that the RF signals were unambiguously coming from the surface of the moon. And that other RF signals were coming from an object in close orbit around the moon, being cut off from earth for nearly half of each orbit. These big antennas have pretty narrow beamwidths. There's no way to park a transmitter within that beam without spending huge amounts of fuel -- or putting it where it's claimed to be: on or near the moon.
|
|