|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 14, 2007 17:08:37 GMT -4
You might be confusing 90 degrees to 180 degrees. Look at the landing legs. The LM is rotated slightly over 90 degrees.Yeah you're right I am, I said I shouldn't post before I woke up didn't I.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 14, 2007 23:11:33 GMT -4
The flag is positioned on the far left of the lander on the first shot. Then on the second its on the far right... the mountain hardly moves in relation between the two photos despite the obviously large difference in angle - this is impossible. Whats up with this rover too? There's no tracks under the tires whats the deal with that? www.aulis.com/jackstudies_18.html
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 14, 2007 23:22:39 GMT -4
...this is impossible.
Hogwash. When I took my parallax demo pictures, the first ones I took were actually too far apart, even though I had only moved a few feet. I had to retake them and move a shorter distance between shots.
There's no tracks under the tires whats the deal with that?
What's the deal with expecting tracks always to appear in every photo?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 14, 2007 23:24:28 GMT -4
No, it is called perspective. It is something that Jack White has proven he knows absolutely nothing about.
As for the missing tracks, do you see all the footprints? The tracks were never very deep and are easily covered over by dirt kicked up and moved around by the astronauts. Jack is trying to imply that the rover couldn't move or that they moved it with a crane for some reason. We have videos of it moving though. What's more, for this picture, if you looks at the pictures from before and after it, you can see that there are tracks in the area, just not right up close because they have been walked on. Another thing Jack is infamous for is not giving the reference number for the photos that he uses so the reader can't look and decide for themselves. Add to that the fact that he often crops and alters photos he uses without disclosing it. who do you think you should trust?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 14, 2007 23:38:47 GMT -4
Here's a mountain about 4 km away from me. Here's the same mountain a kilometer to the right. And another kilometer to the right. Although upon closer inspection the mountain presents a slightly different aspect in each picture, at first glance it appears identical. That shows how far you can move without changing the superficial appearance of distant objects. Now the other side of the coin. Note the position of the utility marker relative to the mountains. I took one step to the side between these shots. Again, one step difference. And one step difference. This shows how much foreground objects can appear to shift against the background even when the photographer takes only one step. Do this yourself; it's not hard.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 15, 2007 0:00:12 GMT -4
The flag is positioned on the far left of the lander on the first shot. Then on the second its on the far right...
It's not actually, did you look at the 360° Panarama I linked too. The flag is to the photograper's right, but it is well infront of the LM itself, and only looks like it's to the right side of it because the panorama is flat.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 15, 2007 0:06:14 GMT -4
the mountain hardly moves in relation between the two photos despite the obviously large difference in angle "Hardly moves?" It's entirely to the right of the LM in the first pan, and almost entirely to the left of the LM in the second. Yes, what is the deal with that? Are you suggesting that the rover on a fake lunar set was moved into place by some means other than just rolling it there? What would be the point of that, other than to suspiciously leave no tracks?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 15, 2007 0:25:45 GMT -4
The LRV in From the Earth to the Moon was rolled onto the set on its own wheels. To keep from leaving suspicious footprints, the crew wore bootie versions of the space suit overshoes made by Global Effects.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 15, 2007 0:29:13 GMT -4
When I took my parallax demo pictures, the first ones I took were actually too far apart, even though I had only moved a few feet. I had to retake them and move a shorter distance between shots. When taking stereo photos, taking a step to the side is often far too much. Our eyes are only about six centimetres apart yet give us stereo vision well past 40 metres, so sometimes it's plenty to just shift our weight about the same distance from one side to the other without moving our feet. Conversely, for very distant scenery such as mountains, we may want to walk a hundred meters to get a stereo pair, but the places we take the photos from must be on the same level, and for taking stereo close-up shots we may have to move only a few millimetres. Note the position of the utility marker relative to the mountains. I took one step to the side between these shots. This first pair of photos of the utility marker are great for me because, unlike the others, you've placed the "right" photo on the left and the "left" photo on the right, so I can see the scene in stereo by crossing my eyes and merging the two images of the marker, which I always find easier to do than trying to look straight ahead at a pair of photos. It looks a little weird in stereo due to the different vehicles in the background, but except for them, most of the stereo image looks okay. Stereo photography can be great fun and it's easy to do with still subjects. No special gear is required -- just a camera and a bit of thought, experimentation and experience. Quite a few pairs of the orbital photos of the lunar surface can give stereo images too.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 15, 2007 0:47:32 GMT -4
One of my jobs as an apprentice photographer in my late teens was taking passport photographs. Back in the olden analog days, identical passport photos were taken on Polaroid film with a four-lens camera. Each lens focused its own version of the image onto a quadrant of the frame. It didn't take me long to notice that the lenses were about as far apart as human eyes. I bought a package of film myself and took stereo pictures of lots of stuff around the studio, having to cross my eyes as you describe in order to see the image. But the 3D effect was superb owing to the small separation in the lenses. None of the stereo pairs seemed distorted or unnatural.
One of my cherished possessions is my great-grandparents' stereoscope and a library of slides, ca. 1910. And yes, I confess to printing out the Gold camera images from Apollo 11 and mounting them on slides to view through this antique.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Mar 15, 2007 2:02:20 GMT -4
That is so cool. Looking at moonscapes through a stereoscope - very Jules Verne, or Georges Méliès.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 15, 2007 2:09:20 GMT -4
The stereoscope slides are on the bookshelf next to my 1905 edition of Verne's From the Earth to the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 15, 2007 2:34:44 GMT -4
A rebuttal to each of Jack's claims on that website can be found here.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 15, 2007 3:56:04 GMT -4
One of my jobs as an apprentice photographer in my late teens was taking passport photographs. Back in the olden analog days, identical passport photos were taken on Polaroid film with a four-lens camera. You too? I bet I shot well over 1000 passport photos in my days working at a camera store back in the 80's. I used the same quad lens Polaroid. It seemed like that camera was in constant use. I used to tell people, "my photography has been shown in almost every country in the world". ;D I never did the stereo experiment with the Polaroid but I did buy an old Kodak 35mm stereo camera from the store owner. I'd run Kodachrome through it and have Kodak process it in the special twin slide frames which could then be viewed in a stereo viewer. I showed those to quite a few people and always got a kick out of the reaction from someone who had never seen stereo slides before. They were blown away by it. Several bought their own stereo cameras because they were so excited by the process.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 15, 2007 5:11:25 GMT -4
A rebuttal to each of Jack's claims on that website can be found here. Hi Obviousman. That's a great thread, but my biggest gripe is trying to find anything in particular on it, because I only have super-slow 2.3 to 3.2 kb/second dialup. Because people occasionally ask about White's claims, could you post a thread here which lists each claim, has a link to White's page at Aulis, and either gives a link to your debunking post, or at least what page and post number to go to? I never could figure how to do links to individual posts at the Education Forum, like we can do here. With such a list the thread would become a much more useful tool than it currently is.
|
|