|
Post by ajv on May 23, 2007 6:48:03 GMT -4
Could he have taken it from Nothing So Hidden? It's well known that the AV Films documentary mistakenly uses footage from the wrong EVA site.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Jun 27, 2007 15:06:11 GMT -4
I haven't seen the video clip but CM Panel 121 has SHAFT and TRUNNION labels. You can see a diagram of it on page 295 of the AOH Controls and Displays (37.1MB) at the AFJ Portal ( AOH Volume 1)
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Apr 23, 2007 16:45:26 GMT -4
You should send them to Eric Jones of the ALSJ.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Apr 26, 2007 15:33:05 GMT -4
Evan,
Apollo 6 did not test a LM. It was a dummy test article - LTA-2R
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Mar 20, 2007 17:49:18 GMT -4
Actually, I'm not 100% sure what "frame" White has highlighted in 22169 because I can't see his attached image without registering at The Education Forum.
Can one of the members confirm whether Jack's "frame" is the one I have?
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Mar 20, 2007 17:44:55 GMT -4
Jack White has found a small rectangular "frame" about 4x5 at about (0.8, -1.2) in AS17-145-22169 Gene's Station 5 Pan. I think it is the toeprint of Schmitt's left boot. In AS17-145-22158 you can see Schmitt stepping at the appropriate place to make the impression.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Nov 18, 2006 15:04:41 GMT -4
Re: handwriting A couple of years ago there was a discussion on the BABB about AS15-84-11348. Kiwi brought up some more examples of the same writing from that generation of scans. Unfortunately (fortunately?) many of the scans that showed this have been replaced on the ALSJ by newer scans but there's still an old version of AS14-68-9441 which shows a good example. If someone has a copy of the ALSJ CDs that were made they should have some of the older scans.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Nov 9, 2006 18:46:21 GMT -4
The two images in Jack's "For puzzle lovers, ...courtesy NASA" are AS17-143-21933 from EVA 3, 170:19:48. AS17-135-20542 from EVA 2, 141:27:08. The first is from the final parking place and Cernan has removed the replacement fender from the right side and the fender extension from the left side.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Oct 18, 2006 17:16:50 GMT -4
The big difference between 20471 and 20472 is that in 20471 Schmitt has the sun visor half raised. Below the sun visor we're seeing a combination of external reflections (from the clear layers of the protective visor and the transparent PHA - i.e. the bubble helmet) and (possibly) Schmitt's face inside the helmet.
I don't think Jack White is aware that the sun visor can raise and change the type of reflections.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Oct 17, 2006 1:37:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Sept 1, 2006 18:42:05 GMT -4
Production of not perfect images from better than household scanners from NASA, make shapes and form, appear and disappear.Actually, there is a very slight brightening at the top edge of the kippsphoto image corresponding to the approximate position of the lower part of your "blue linething". It even appears in your noline1du7 reproduction. I am not arguing that it is indeed the same image artifact as the "blue linething" or that it appears in the original photograph. We have too little data to go on. But, as I pointed out on page one the main streak area of your "blue linething" cannot appear in your second image (kippsphotos) because that image has been cropped excluding some of the black sky (where your "blue linething" appears), some of the ground below Aldrin and also some of the sides. So complaining that the "blue linething" has mysteriously disappeared between the two images is silly. It's obvious why it doesn't appear. There is nothing wrong with this cropping. The kippsphotos image appears as part of an image gallery celebrating the 30th anniversary in 1999. In 1999, if you cast your mind back, few people had large (more than 1280 pixel wide) monitors and most accessed the web using dial-up modems. Indeed recommended web publishing guidelines of the time suggested designing for a maximum of an 800 pixel wide monitor. So producing an image for the 30th anniversary with a width of 800 pixels and cropping bits that didn't contain an Astronaut in order to decrease download time was very sensible. Your first image is from the new set of scans (post-2004) performed by NASA Johnson. As noted this was scanned at 4096x4096 and, as documented, scaled (to 2349x2365). Note that scaling automatically implies a loss of image information. Other image processing has been documented as being performed too. And finally the image is converted to the lossy JPEG format. The second image (kippsphotos) was very clearly from the pre-2004 scans. The image on the website is dated June 1999. Images (from Kipps site) of this vintage were very often scanned from photographic prints. These prints would have already been several generations removed from the photographic emulsion that went to the moon (there would have been a master reproduction copy made of the original and a color negative made from that for mass print production - any maybe even more generations in between). Then add the scanning (scanned in 1999 or earlier, remember) to gain a digital image and then rectangular cropping and scaling to 800 pixels. There may have been some other minor image manipulation performed too as above. And finally that image is converted to the lossy JPEG format. So these images clearly have very different reproduction histories. is clavius.org arguing film masters or JPEG hi-res copies ?There are lots of arguments you can make by referring to the high resolution JPEG image. If someone argues that the shadow lengths are wrong in a given image or that a crosshair disappears or the rover tracks are funny or that the mountains look like a backdrop or whatever, then an analysis of the higher resolution images (even JPEG ones) can be used to explain all of these. The argument is made at a level where it does not matter that we are viewing a lossy, scaled, brightened, whatever image. But an argument that a certain patch of black sky has a 24-bit pixel value of, say, #040509 in one scan and #09090b in another where we have no definite reproduction history of either scan and both are have gone through lossy JPEG conversions is silly because it is an argument critically dependent on the exact reproduction histories.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Aug 27, 2006 6:37:19 GMT -4
The image on kippsphotos has been cropped (it's a rectangle) and doesn't even overlap the "blue linething". It clearly has different color levels compared with the HR image. Also, who knows exactly what jpeg compression or other image processing has been done on either image before publishing. Note the following quote from the ALSJ (Kipp Teague is the "Kipp" in kippsphotos and the Project Apollo Archive). These scans are being done by NASA Johnson, with some post-processing by Kipp Teague. The film is scanned at 4096 x 4096 pixels per image. Kipp reduces each digital image to approximately 2350 x 2350 pixels (equivalent to 300 dpi) and does minor adjustments of levels to ensure that (1) brightly lit areas of lunar soil are neutral grey, (2) objects with known colors (such as the CDR stripes or the LCRU blankets) look right, and (3) information in bright or dark areas is not lost. Here's a note by Michael Light on the ALSJ about Apollo color.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Aug 27, 2006 1:04:23 GMT -4
it's AS11-40-5875 Aldrin salutes the U.S. Flag No, it's not. It's AS11-40-5874. You can see the fingers of Aldrin's salute.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Aug 26, 2006 22:47:04 GMT -4
When you reference a photo please use the Apollo image number e.g. AS11-40-5874 and use high resolution images if possible. Good catalog references are the LPI to locate the image numbers or the Project Apollo Archive for good resolution images.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Aug 4, 2006 10:21:14 GMT -4
Here is an example of a VPA (Vanishing Point Analysis) diagram. The lines on a down-sun photo will converge where the shadow of the camera would be as in this example. Note: ignore the blue orange and pink rubbish by Jack White - the proper VPA is the pencil of red lines.
|
|