|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 7, 2005 23:30:50 GMT -4
kiwi have you looked at the video segment I linked earlier? It also, imo, moves like an arm...... Yes, and bringing to bear my experience as a photographer since 1968 and my knowledge of Apollo , I certainly don't see a bare arm. Nor do I see the object moving like an arm. I see a stationary object and the effects of a moving camera, and the object looks most like the folded antenna. But your mind is made up, so we mustn't bother you with the facts, right? Next time, please don't mimic the usual hoax-believer's fault and instead have the good sense to start a new thread when you start a new subject. This thread was about what the Apollo 11 astronauts were doing during a telecast. I submitted useful information about this (the transcripts of the first two telecasts) and asked questions about which parts BS had used in his video, but everyone got sidetracked into your rorschaching, which should have been in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 8, 2005 3:00:56 GMT -4
kiwi have you looked at the video segment I linked earlier? It also, imo, moves like an arm...... Yes, and bringing to bear my experience as a photographer since 1968 and my knowledge of Apollo , I certainly don't see a bare arm. Nor do I see the object moving like an arm. I see a stationary object and the effects of a moving camera, and the object looks most like the folded antenna. But your mind is made up, so we mustn't bother you with the facts, right? Next time, please don't mimic the usual hoax-believer's fault and instead have the good sense to start a new thread when you start a new subject. This thread was about what the Apollo 11 astronauts were doing during a telecast. I submitted useful information about this (the transcripts of the first two telecasts) and asked questions about which parts BS had used in his video, but everyone got sidetracked into your rorschaching, which should have been in another thread. Second part first - yes I apologize for the thread sidetracking, even though it was also done first by phantom posting the stars and crater issues. No matter, it's no biggie - but calling it "rorschaching"? I'm analyzing anomalous images to find out what they are, or could be. You can denigrate what I'm doing as interpretive or imagining, but it doesn't matter to me - I don't discount the antenna, but the arm still doesn't convince me. And the other objects haven't been replied on.. Now, to say I don't bother with the facts because you see a stationary object and a moving camera, and I don't, is a rather disparaging comment. Look at the pic with three stills in sequence - do you see a static object and moving background? I see a moving object and a static background
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 8, 2005 9:26:31 GMT -4
I see the antenna moving (or the antenna staying still and the camera moving), and a more-or-less stationary-looking red blob, which looks like lens a flare to me. Is that what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 8, 2005 13:29:24 GMT -4
This is a side by side comparison of the online still on the left and the DVD still on the right. I have asked ten people I know for strictly impartial opinions on one single question - which image has better clarity? Ten people gave the same answer - the left side image. I know now I'm not the onlyt one who sees it that way. By what process is one "clearer" than the other? We are familiar with this cliche from Hollywood movies ( No Way Out and Patriot Games, to name two): the Nerd sitting at the computer shows the Hero an image on the monitor that just looks like random blobs. The Hero asks, "Can you clean that up?" The Nerd taps away and hours (or seconds) later, the blobs resolve themselves into a photo-quality image. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Image processing can reduce interference, adjust contrast, brightness & color (if any). All of these tools can make subtle details in the original more visible. It cannot improve the resolution. The particular processing that made your left-hand image is insidious: It takes a heavily pixellated image and smooths & normalizes the differences so that, where we saw a series of broad steps from light-to-dark, we now see a more continuous transition. If you want images that look good, and aren't worried about detail resolution in individual frames, this is a valid method to use. I will definitely agree with you and your 10 friends on this point: The left-hand image does "look" clearer. Unfortunately, that sort of processing is not a good option for doing single-frame image analysis because it smooths over surface details. In essence it says, "That is supposed to be a smooth transition, so I will make it look like a smooth transition." In a very extreme example, it would make a glove look like a mitten. In this case, any hint of ribbing would be erased. That's why I call this processing "insidious": You think you're getting a clearer image, but you're actually losing important details. So, the relevant question is not, "Which image looks clearer?" it's "Which image has more useful information?"
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 8, 2005 15:11:38 GMT -4
Now, to say I don't bother with the facts because you see a stationary object and a moving camera, and I don't, is a rather disparaging comment. Look at the pic with three stills in sequence - do you see a static object and moving background? I see a moving object and a static background - I think we can all agree that the camera is indisputably in motion. - We can see lense flares moving around the frame in their distinctive manner. - We can also see circular spots caused by specks of dust on the lense. These do not move around the frame at all, but do vary in brightness, depending on the light falling on the lense. - When the object is in view, there are only two frames that show any background (other than the blackness of space) at all: (Pardon the cursor, which I forgot to move off the images) The second image does not show enough horizon (on the lower right) to see any detail. That leaves us with only a single frame of backround. -To characterize the motion (if any) of the object, at the very least we need to know the motion of the camera along six axes (x,y,z,tilt, pan & roll) and we need a background against which to reference the object's relative movement over several frames. We can only make the grossest approximation of the former, and do not have anything useful for the latter. Even if the object is in motion (for example, if Conrad was fiddling with the setup - but we don't see him in this sequence), the camera's motion would make it difficult to characterize the motion. The video record does not provide enough data to suggest any movement of the object, let alone enough data to characterize such motion as "arm-like".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 8, 2005 21:34:28 GMT -4
The particular processing that made your left-hand image is insidious: It takes a heavily pixellated image and smooths & normalizes the differences so that, where we saw a series of broad steps from light-to-dark, we now see a more continuous transition. If you want images that look good, and aren't worried about detail resolution in individual frames, this is a valid method to use. I will definitely agree with you and your 10 friends on this point: The left-hand image does "look" clearer. Unfortunately, that sort of processing is not a good option for doing single-frame image analysis because it smooths over surface details. In essence it says, "That is supposed to be a smooth transition, so I will make it look like a smooth transition." In a very extreme example, it would make a glove look like a mitten. In this case, any hint of ribbing would be erased. That's why I call this processing "insidious": You think you're getting a clearer image, but you're actually losing important details.Count Zero, that is an excellent explanation for what has happened to the image turbonium is using. In fact, I think you will get a big kick out of this. In comparing tubonium's image, captured from an online Real Player video, to the same frame captured from the DVD, I realized that the antenna actually is "triple-exposed" in this frame. I am speaking of that multiple ghost-image rainbow effect you see in Apollo television whenever there is fast motion on the screen. Here is a comparison: Turbonium's Frame Obliterates Multiple-Exposure BoundariesLook at the second image from the left here and notice that it is not ribbing you see within the antenna mesh, but another image of the right edge of the antenna. There are actually three images of the antenna stacked up here, about equally spaced, with a fainter one as the rightmost one. I can mark these edges if you are unsure of what I am describing. Notice that this (important) detail is practically lost in turbonium's frame. The leftmost antenna image exists perhaps as the right edge of the reddish region within the antenna mesh. His frame does retain the rightmost, fainter ghost-image. What this means is that we are not even seeing a real structure in turbonium's frame. At best, the "arm" feature is just two images of the antenna superimposed and altered through compression and contrast enhancement such that it looks like a single feature.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 0:06:25 GMT -4
I see the antenna moving (or the antenna staying still and the camera moving), and a more-or-less stationary-looking red blob, which looks like lens a flare to me. Is that what you mean? Yes, while the three blue arrows point to stationary features, the ''wriggly'' green arrow points to the movement made by the object.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 1:20:36 GMT -4
This is a side by side comparison of the online still on the left and the DVD still on the right. I have asked ten people I know for strictly impartial opinions on one single question - which image has better clarity? Ten people gave the same answer - the left side image. I know now I'm not the onlyt one who sees it that way. By what process is one "clearer" than the other? We are familiar with this cliche from Hollywood movies ( No Way Out and Patriot Games, to name two): the Nerd sitting at the computer shows the Hero an image on the monitor that just looks like random blobs. The Hero asks, "Can you clean that up?" The Nerd taps away and hours (or seconds) later, the blobs resolve themselves into a photo-quality image. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Image processing can reduce interference, adjust contrast, brightness & color (if any). All of these tools can make subtle details in the original more visible. It cannot improve the resolution. The particular processing that made your left-hand image is insidious: It takes a heavily pixellated image and smooths & normalizes the differences so that, where we saw a series of broad steps from light-to-dark, we now see a more continuous transition. If you want images that look good, and aren't worried about detail resolution in individual frames, this is a valid method to use. I will definitely agree with you and your 10 friends on this point: The left-hand image does "look" clearer. Unfortunately, that sort of processing is not a good option for doing single-frame image analysis because it smooths over surface details. In essence it says, "That is supposed to be a smooth transition, so I will make it look like a smooth transition." In a very extreme example, it would make a glove look like a mitten. In this case, any hint of ribbing would be erased. That's why I call this processing "insidious": You think you're getting a clearer image, but you're actually losing important details. So, the relevant question is not, "Which image looks clearer?" it's "Which image has more useful information?" Wouldn't that also ''blur'' the image though? By smoothing out details should it not also make it have less defined edges? The dvd, as I see it, has ghost images that cause the doubling and tripling effect, and nothing to suggest that it improves details. The second set of stills is the best example of difference in clarity and sharpness. The dvd still is, to me, much more "pixelated", and nothing I see has any better detail as compared to the online still. Are there any specific details in the dvd stills that you see that I am not observing?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 1:49:09 GMT -4
joe, the stationary items I pointed out with the arrows still look to me to be stationary in your stills. How would camera motion be the cause of the ghost images in the dvd stills?
In the third still from the left the bottom of the object appears to bend to the left at nearly a 45 degree angle. But the mesh does not have an angle in it's shape as seen in an earlier frame posted. What would this then be?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 9, 2005 1:53:09 GMT -4
Yes, while the three blue arrows point to stationary features, the ''wriggly'' green arrow points to the movement made by the object. All three of the "stationary features" indicated by the blue arrows are lense flares. Watch as they rotate around the center of the frame. As Beano changes direction, they rotate rapidly counter-clockwise, then steady as the antenna comes into view, then, in the last two images, start rotating clockwise:
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 4:32:01 GMT -4
Yes, that 's true. But if you look at your frames 7 and 8 from the top they are examples such as I posted which show movement of the object without movement from the camera, nor lens rotation.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 9, 2005 8:28:36 GMT -4
Yes, that 's true. But if you look at your frames 7 and 8 from the top they are examples such as I posted which show movement of the object without movement from the camera, nor lens rotation. You haven't properly read the posts above and made the effort required to understand them. No-one mentioned lens roatation, only rotation of camera flares, which doesn't require the lens to rotate. Most of what you're talking about are just artifacts in your own images (not in the subject), combined with your painfully-obvious ignorance of of the technicalities involved. There are REAL image experts trying to help you here, but you don't even understand what they are telling you. You see a static background -- the experts see lens flares, and show them to you. You see a "bare arm", the experts see a folded antenna, and take great pains to show its similarity to your "arm." You see "movement of the object without movement from the camera" -- the experts see the opposite and explain it to you. And you still don't seem to get it. The white area on the left of frames 7 and 8 is a lens flare -- nothing to do with the object. So how do you explain that the object is moving and not the camera? Take just one instance of what I say above: Do you fully understand the use of the tricolour filter in the TV cameras (post Apollo 11) and how it produced a colour image? If you don't then you can't understand the posts here. You may indeed think it is disparaging, but in my opinion you are doing the same as Richard Hoagland -- fiddling with images, looking at individual pixels and, with your lack of knowledge, seeing crystal castles. Rorschaching. This is nothing new to many of us here. We've even had to do some reverse-rorschaching, turning track lights into ink blots: www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=313510#313510Nor is your behaviour anything new. Just the same old tedious "same old" that we've seen over and over and over from hoax-believers. Makes us wonder if you're just jerking chains. Fixed typos
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 9, 2005 8:35:55 GMT -4
joe, the stationary items I pointed out with the arrows still look to me to be stationary in your stills. How would camera motion be the cause of the ghost images in the dvd stills?
For the purposes of my argument there, it doesn't matter what was in motion. The point is the antenna image has been displaced relative to the camera sensor surface over the course of a couple of frames. In case you are unaware of how Apollo color television works, the camera is a black-and-white televesion camera with a rotating color filter wheel behind the lens. The camera takes one frame with the red filter, one with the green, and one with the blue (I don't remember the exact order of the colors). Back on Earth, as each frame is received, the converter overlays the last 3 frames it has received into a single image. This provides a full-color image as long as motion is not too rapid.
In the third still from the left the bottom of the object appears to bend to the left at nearly a 45 degree angle. But the mesh does not have an angle in it's shape as seen in an earlier frame posted. What would this then be?
You'll have to mark exactly what you are referring to. I said that frame had the "double exposed" effect to it, but we may be really seeing 3 images of the antenna here, which may create false contours. The shape of the corner we see on the lower right of the object, which is rendered reasonably clear in this frame, is not characteristic of an arm but is characteristic of the antenna.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 9, 2005 8:42:59 GMT -4
But if you look at your frames 7 and 8 from the top they are examples such as I posted which show movement of the object without movement from the camera, nor lens rotation.
Turbonium, the lunar surface comes into view in lower right corner of frame 8 here (easier to see on the DVD), which shows that the camera is moving. That the camera is moving is expected. Al Bean is in the process of moving it from the MESA to the TV camera tripod.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 9, 2005 14:33:52 GMT -4
Yes, that 's true. But if you look at your frames 7 and 8 from the top they are examples such as I posted which show movement of the object without movement from the camera, nor lens rotation. By looping the ~1 second that the antenna is on screen, you can see from the lense flares that the camera is constantly in motion. Although Beano is keeping the camera approximately level (rolled 11degrees to the right when we see the horizon), his arm is rotating along the tilt & pan axes as he lopes along in 1/6th G (he remarks at this point, "Hey, it's real nice moving around up here. You don't seem to get tired. You really hop like a bunny."). We see three examples, in this traverse, of objects coming into the frame from the bottom, then moving off to the left (the first time it's the antenna, the second and third instances are a crater on the ground, which is seen 2 seconds and 6 seconds after the antenna), indicating that the axis of the camera is (I may be using the wrong word, here) "precessing" in a clockwise direction. At this point, we have nothing to suggest that the antenna is in motion; but since its path into and out of the frame is reasonably consistent with the paths of observed ground objects, this strongly implies that the antenna either is not moving, or is not moving much. Points to remember in the bigger picture: - Conrad has set up the antenna, but has not yet deployed it. - Bean is loping toward the antenna, and slightly to the right. - Bean is carrying the camera while pointing it along his direction of motion (we can see this as he gets closer to the afore-mentioned crater). Under these circumstances, it would be a little surprising if we didn't see the antenna during Beans traverse. Lest we forget: - The proportions of the "object" do not match an arm. - The proportions of the "object" do match the furled S-band antenna. - The "pole" of the "object" matches the mast of the S-band antenna. Before we take this discussion any further, please address this last point.
|
|