|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2012 11:25:45 GMT -4
Fattydash's (a.k.a. Patrick1000, HighGain) writing style is what impresses you? That's what everyone else finds insufferable about him. Half his posts are like transcripts of a playground taunting circle. Even if you felt compelled to endure his puerile diction, you discover that his walls of text are just rants that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 23, 2011 14:23:41 GMT -4
Has digital video changed this? Because the cameras are much smaller and the recording medium is essentially free, I assume it's now far more practical than it ever was with film to cut between several digital cameras filming a single take. This would save much time on the set, but it still wouldn't work if you had to change the lighting or rearrange the set between camera angles. No, digital methods haven't changed the technique much. Small single-camera productions are still small single-camera productions, and large studio productions are still large studio productions. Feature quality digital camera rentals are dramatically more expensive than film camera rentals, so the savings in photochemical film stock are simply transferred to a different budget line item. And they use the same lens grades. Lens rental is also a huge expense. Effects and editing have been done digitally for quite some time, so you save time and labor by going directly to a digital medium. But the cost difference isn't enough to dictate a marked change in cinematography technique. You'll use the two-camera technique, for example, when the location costs outweigh the equipment costs. I remember shooting in a train station where they would only let us rope off the area for half an hour. That was a two-camera shoot. We shot the dialogue close up from two angles, then again with the leads in a two-shot and the B camera up on a balcony. That led the editor have an opportunity to make some cutaways. Then the B-roll shots we did handheld with ordinary passengers let back into the area. And yes, the technique has as much to do with art as with economics. If your cinematographer is trying to achieve a certain "look" then he'll definitely want to make sure both angles are well crafted. Then there are artistic concerns that have a distinctly practical manifestation. Especially when shooting outdoors, direct sunlight poses problems. You'll shoot half the conversation with a big sunshade to soften the difference between light and shade. But you typically can't shoot the reverse angle without seeing the sunshade. When it's cut together the lighting seems consistent.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 22, 2011 18:03:42 GMT -4
"Forced perspective" is a broad concept that can cover the contraction of depth in the ISS transit photo as well as the expansion of depth by using non-square walls in set design.
Most studio-audience sitcom sets are constructed in forced perspective, with the wall farthest from the studio audience smaller than it appears and the side walls angled slightly inward. A sitcom is filmed in an ordinary rectangular soundstage with the audience bleachers along one of the long walls facing the other long wall. The various sets are placed side-by-side along the long dimension, and sometimes along either end. But typically the ends are reserved for dressing areas, technical workspace, prop storage, and other off-camera zones.
Since the short dimension of the stage is the audience's line of sight, depth is difficult to achieve. Hence the need to force the perspective to expand the apparent depth.
A cinematic example of the opposite forced perspective effect -- i.e., the contraction of depth -- is from Fellowship of the Ring where Elijah Wood is seated in Gandalf's cart considerably farther away from the camera than Sir Ian McKellan, making him appear much smaller. The seats are arranged such that from the camera's line of sight they plausibly may be considered seated on the same bench.
Attention to eyeline makes these techniques work all the time in the cinematic world to achieve illusions of widely varying scale. It too is forced perspective.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 22, 2011 17:39:15 GMT -4
Raster graphics didn't catch on until about 1971. Prior to that, computer graphics meant vector displays, which cannot represent photographs, texture maps, shading, or any of the things we mean today by modern CGI, or even raster-based methods such as in Adobe Photoshop. The representation of a raster scan line by discrete values (as opposed to a continuous intensity function) was largely unknown in the mid- and late-1960 period in which Apollo photos began appearing, and RGB encoding (as opposed to monochrome) was entirely unknown.
Random-access memory sizes of modern mainframes in the 1960s and 1970s were typically limited to single digit megabytes, precluding the storage of an entire frame of 70mm film in RGB at film resolution. Hence digital image manipulation had to be performed on tape-stored photos, a scan line at a time.
Lighting models were crude. Flat shading predominated early raster images until the work of Gouraud and Phong (at my university) in the early 1970s. Gouraud-shaded images still have telltales on object edges. Texture mapping did not appear until 1974, long after Apollo was over and done with.
The history of computer graphics simply does not allow CGI to be used to produce Apollo photos.
The IBM 029 card punch is reasonably inexpensive, although the chances of correctly using it to manually input a raster image without error are miniscule.
Taking off my engineer hat and putting on my film actor's hat...
A conversation is typically filmed in one of two ways. With a two-camera setup, you film both over-the-shoulder (OTS) angles and roll-edit between them. This is not used as often as the two-shot method, where you film OTS for one actor, then OTS for the other, repeating the conversation each time. Since the cadence differs between the two takes, you can't roll-edit between them. Often the rough cut will be a roll edit, which is then tightened up on the finesse editing pass, sometimes giving the audio editor fits as he tries to edit between the location audio takes.
One of the non-intuitive things about film acting in this setup is that if the featured actor looks directly at the non-featured actor, it will look like he is "spiking" the camera -- i.e., looking directly into it. The viewer's perception is especially sensitive to eye lines, but in this case is fooled by a confounding effect from lens focal length. So the featured actor has to "cheat" his eyeline outward, away from the camera slightly. Attention to eyeline is part of what makes a good film actor. Ironically some actors find it easier to cheat the eyeline if there is no physical actor there to distract them. But in general it's difficult to act convincingly if there is no interlocutor.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 19, 2011 20:43:37 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. It takes no effort or expertise to scoff, but it does take expertise to show in detail where the rebuttals are in error. I pay attention only to the latter. We have, and you clearly have not read them. Therefore your claim that the rebuttals are "laughable or just miserable" is an uninformed bluff. What if the CIA is not paying me? It is very typical of hoax theorists to assume all their critics must be American. Correct. Real-life questions are discussed according to evidence and sound logic, not according to vague unsupported assertions. No, the F-1 predated Kennedy. And Kennedy did not micromanage the development of Apollo. Prove it. Citation needed. Irrelevant. The tools you propose to use were not available in 1969.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 17, 2011 0:57:48 GMT -4
"nomuse" you continue misinterpreting my text. I told that in my model you take the background from 3D, you tilt it 90 degrees... He's not misinterpreting your text; you're being unclear. What exactly is being "tilted 90 degrees?" And about which axis is it being rotated?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 17, 2011 0:46:29 GMT -4
The key problems are those mentioned: F-1, LM and docking system Okay, my boss in my first real engineering position worked on the Apollo docking system. Please explain in detail what was wrong with it. No handwaving. I'm an engineer; I'll know if you're bluffing.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 23:33:54 GMT -4
I'm so glad I stayed out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 17:31:51 GMT -4
U.S. citizen.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 16:52:08 GMT -4
I too collect historic Apollo books from the 1970s. I have several that are folio size and have high-quality reproductions.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 14:37:08 GMT -4
He's talking about the boilerplate, not the actual A13 capsule. Regardless, speculations about the boilerplate are not evidence. Yes, of course -- my mistake. The Soviets indeed recovered an Apollo boilerplate spacecraft. However a boilerplate is not the full spacecraft; it is meant only to mimic certain aspects of it for training and development purposes. Hence if BP-1227 doesn't have everything on it that a real CM would, it's to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 14:24:09 GMT -4
I have my own counter-arguments. Unconvincing ones. You tried to pass off Pokrovsky and Popov as learned experts, until you found out that their critics are just as learned -- and better able to support their argument from fact. You are the one changing horses. Prove it. That's the purpose of debate. If your claims cannot stand up to scrutiny, then too bad. You haven't shown that the answers are lousy. What is your evidence that we are nervous and desperate? You're the one trying any and every argument. We are clearly in the majority, and we have every single qualified expert on our side. Why would we be nervous? Let's see: we have the names of the astronauts, who are on record with their claims. We have the ship they traveled in, the names of the people who built it, the rocket that propelled it, and a detailed history of the development, testing, and operation of that equipment. What commensurate body of evidence exists for your theory? Hearsay. The Saturn V program was intentionally terminated in part to keep it from competing against the shuttle. The shuttle contract bidders would only accept the risk if the U.S. government would commit to it as a primary launch system. No. The U.S. space infrastructure as envisioned in the 1960s and 1970s was interplanetary missions constructed in orbit at a space station that was to be built with a space shuttle. Then stop claiming them as an authority. Hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 13:57:21 GMT -4
It is strange - I was using and teaching computer graphics in early 1970s I don't believe you. Irrelevant. The materials have been available publicly since they were released just a few weeks after each mission. Yes, it's called texture-mapping, and it's anachronistic for 1969. Further, early attempts at texture-mapping (i.e., before bump-mapping appeared) are clearly telltale. You may be having difficulty expressing the nuance of your statements in English, but I think the real problem is that you believe you are speaking to novices while you yourself are clearly a novice. That's the layman's perspective. The entire Apollo record has been continuously available since 1969, but it required more than casual interest to want to go find it. Analysis made from a convenience JPEG? Really? Are you serious? Factually false. Apollo 13 practically landed on top of the recovery forces.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 13:26:11 GMT -4
NASA maintained a number of regional document and data repositories around the United States since the 1960s as part of overall U.S. government document availability policy.
For many years NASA has used a private contractor to handle photo services. You've always been able to get Apollo photos.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 13:11:11 GMT -4
In technical fields, the year of graduation is also helpful as the curricula can change markedly over time.
|
|