|
|
Post by earthorbit on Jul 14, 2005 13:13:17 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 14, 2005 13:17:23 GMT -4
You really shouldn't be linking directly to images on Aulis or any other site. I'm sure they don't appreciate it. The only exception I will make is official NASA images since they permit people to use them that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthorbit on Jul 14, 2005 13:21:20 GMT -4
I don't think the people at Aulis will mind.
Nevertheless, this is your site, you get to make the rules, so fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 14, 2005 13:23:16 GMT -4
If it is leeching from the bandwidth that they pay for then they probably do care... unless of course they make so much money from the site that they don't need to worry about bandwidth useage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 13:35:46 GMT -4
I find "Page 5" particularly hillarious. 11's hatch was dark on the left half, 12's hatch was dark on the right half, and 14's was a solid color. Uhhhh, so? They're different LM's, so what?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 14, 2005 13:56:53 GMT -4
Jack White's amazement that no two LMs were exactly alike does not constitute an anomaly.
White mistakes a lens flare in one case for a shadow.
The duplicated reticles are an interreflection from the rear lens element that occurs when shooting up-sun. White has no experience in reseau-equipped cameras and so does not qualify as any kind of expert on that question.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 14, 2005 14:13:54 GMT -4
I find "Page 5" particularly hillarious. 11's hatch was dark on the left half, 12's hatch was dark on the right half, and 14's was a solid color. Uhhhh, so? They're different LM's, so what? Also, I can not see what he is claiming in some of the pictures. On page 3, the shadow on the "ceiling" does not look to me like it goes to the door, but ends on the left panel of the ceiling. The left panel has some thing that looks like a wrinkle with the shadow behind, but I do not know, from what material are these made. The shadows in the middle panel are moving in a different direction. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Jul 14, 2005 21:04:03 GMT -4
Its not impossible at all. First anyone who listens to White when it concerns light and shadow is daft. He has no understanding at all about either.
The shadow White contends is on the door of the A11 LM is impossible to create. I know this for a fact because I understand light and shadow AND I tested it in my studio just the other day.
First White suggests the shadow is caused by a diffuse light used as fill from the left side of the frame. He claims that as a 50 year professional photographer that it jumped right out at him...the dreaded "double shadow.
However White fails with this notion. A shadow cast by a duffuse light source produces a shadow with a diffuse edge. The "shadow" White suggests does not show any signs of having a diffuse edge, to the contrary to shows a hard edge, which requires a hard source of light. Failure number one for White.
Second it is impossibe to cast a "shadow" such as the one White is suggesting using the geometry of the hatch and porch area. The angled support section on the right side of gthe porch is the object which would be casting a shadow on the door if it were indeed a shadow. The problem is that this angled section makes it IMPOSSIBLE to cast a shadow that gives a edge line through the center of the door. There is simply not any position that you can place a light that will give a "shadow" as White suggests. I know...I have tried.
White bases his study not on evidence but rather personal opinion....opinion that is not grounded on any fact nor experience. He makes an appeal to authority by claiming "50 years as a professional photographer". I've had detailed discussions with White about his photography experience and it does not include experience on lighting. His Apollo and JFK works are replete with errors when it comes to light and shadow and anyone who trusts his "expertise" in such matters should be forewarned that they are standing on very thin ice.
I challenge White or Percy to show me a lighting setup that will produce a shadow like the one they suggest exists on the door of the A11 LM.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 15, 2005 9:14:07 GMT -4
Craig, welcome!
I'm glad you posted that. I have only the most rudimentary grasp of photography, and I noticed the same thing. Those "shadows" are the wrong shape and too sharp. It seemed so obvious I thought I was missing something.
Now, if a rank photographic layman like me can see it, how the heck can anyone who calls himself an "expert" make such a claim with a straight face?
Far more interesting to me than White's "anomalies" are the peculiar set of psychological traits that lead someone to be so insistently, vociferously, and wildly wrong. And how the arrogance of such people seems to vary directly with their ignorance.
But then again, I'm a rank layman when it comes to psychology, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 15, 2005 9:29:49 GMT -4
Craig, welcome! I'm glad you posted that. I have only the most rudimentary grasp of photography, and I noticed the same thing. Those "shadows" are the wrong shape and too sharp. It seemed so obvious I thought I was missing something. Now, if a rank photographic layman like me can see it, how the heck can anyone who calls himself an "expert" make such a claim with a straight face? Far more interesting to me than White's "anomalies" are the peculiar set of psychological traits that lead someone to be so insistently, vociferously, and wildly wrong. And how the arrogance of such people seems to vary directly with their ignorance. But then again, I'm a rank layman when it comes to psychology, too. I will second your observations as another rank layman. In fact, I'm worse; I'm just rank. |
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jul 15, 2005 14:16:15 GMT -4
Tut, there's no need to pull rank here.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 15, 2005 15:35:01 GMT -4
Diffuse light casting a hard-edged shadow made me laugh too. Lighting 101.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 15, 2005 21:54:33 GMT -4
Diffuse light casting a hard-edged shadow made me laugh too. Lighting 101. You guys really are silly. Come on, everyone knows that the dumb physics that you base your assumptions on doesn't really work. What you have to do is follow Grant, IDW, MrGuitarDeath and a few others examples and totally rejig physics so that it works properly (ie the way you want it too). See diffuse lighting releases the bouyant "white particle" which due to the repulsion factor of gravity is able to create impossibly shaped and sharp shadows. Dah! [/woowoo mode] |
|
|
|
Post by moonglow on Jul 16, 2005 5:00:56 GMT -4
Nobody addressed the folded up LRV switching side's on the LM after landing issue. I thought that was compelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Jul 16, 2005 6:59:30 GMT -4
Nobody addressed the folded up LRV switching side's on the LM after landing issue. I thought that was compelling.I agree. It is compelling evidence that Jack White has done no research into the issue. The LRV is stowed in Quad I ("port"). The MESA is in quad IV ("starboard"). White sees the MESA and guesses it is the remains of the LRV deployment. But in one example of the LRV deployment, the Apollo 15 TV sequence has the MESA, the ladder and the pre-deployed LRV all visible in the same frame so we know he hasn't bothered looking at that. Indeed in the very image White selects to demonstrate his example, AS16-116-18578, you can see the LRV deployment straps hanging down off the LM.
|
|
