|
Post by moonglow on Oct 19, 2005 5:27:38 GMT -4
Phantomwolf, what happend to your post I quoted from? Oh well, you can still reply can't you? I just figured you meant focus setting instead of focal length and just wanted to clarify it. I didn't mean for my reply to be snotty in any way, please don't take it that way..
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 19, 2005 8:48:15 GMT -4
I wonder why. Which is to say, I don't wonder why it was archived as kinescope; I wonder why it was archived at all. I believe it was to do with international distribution. At the time the only way to convert NTSC to PAL was via hi resolution monitors and cameras (optical conversion). The degree of quality loss was high using this method, as opposed to the less intrusive loss via kinescope. Instead of sending an NTSC tape to PAL countries, a 16mm kinescope master was sent instead. At least that is what I seem to recall was the case in the early 70's. (sorry TV theory and history is rusty) BTW I recall in the early 80's watching MASH which was optically converted, and it was very noticeable. At one point in 1989 I transferred some archival Australian news material for a Time-Life compilation, and the pre, say, 1980 American footage was extremely low quality. cheers Dwight RTL TX
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 20, 2005 6:42:50 GMT -4
Phantomwolf, what happend to your post I quoted from? Oh well, you can still reply can't you? I just figured you meant focus setting instead of focal length and just wanted to clarify it. I didn't mean for my reply to be snotty in any way, please don't take it that way.. It's reply No. 13 on page 1. Yes, PhantomWolf would have meant focus setting, as the focal length of the lens was fixed. I have an idea that Al Bean and Pete Conrad talked about setting the camera at a particular number of feet when they were taking photos of Surveyor 3.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 20, 2005 7:17:46 GMT -4
Yep, they did. From the CD version of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (the online version may have been updated):
134:04:56 Conrad: The first thing is photo bay A: (f/)11, 15 feet (focus), one picture.
134:05:03 Bean: 11, 15; let me get it set. 11, 15. Boy, that's turned just kind of a light tan hasn't it, Pete?
134:05:11 Conrad: It sure has.
134:05:12 Bean: And some of the things are even a dark brown.
134:05:14 Conrad: Yeah, you're closer than 15. Don't go any closer.
134:05:16 Bean: Yeah. Maybe I'd better back up a little.
134:05:17 Conrad: That a boy.
134:05:18 Bean: How's that?
[Al takes AS12-48- 7099 (**) and 7100 (scan by Kipp Teague).]
134:05:19 Conrad: That a boy...
134:05:20 Gibson: Hey, Pete, do you think there's a chance you're at the wrong Surveyor?
134:05:26 Conrad: No, sir.
134:05:28 Bean: Boy! It sure dug in the ground, didn't it? Oh, look at those pad marks! They're still there. Still the waffle imprints on it. Okay. What's next?
134:05:36 Conrad: Photo TV sector: f/8, 15, three pictures.
134:05:41 Bean: Okay. Let me move down.
134:05:43 Conrad: Hey, this cuff checklist sure helps do the job.
134:05:47 Bean: It sure does. Cadet Gibson checklist. Okay, Ed. Hey, look at that dirt's still on the footpad. It's going to make a great...
134:05:56 Conrad: My compliments to the CapCom.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 20, 2005 21:35:33 GMT -4
Sorry for not answering faster, I missed yur post. Yeah I did. It comes from not knowing the photography terms. I just tend to point and click. I still get some pretty nice Pics though.
|
|
|
Post by moonglow on Oct 21, 2005 5:07:21 GMT -4
Oh no problem, I was just worried that I might have come across rude. Yeah it's easy to mix up term's even if you do know them when thing's are closely related like that. I just figured I'd set that straight. Reading the post's of all these brain's here it feel's good to actually hit something that's in your alley and get a chance to chip in, even if it's a small chip.
|
|