|
Post by chrlz on Jan 2, 2012 2:13:27 GMT -4
Okay, off the top of my head, the depth of field is way too shallow, especially if the "sun" is supposed to be the sole light source. The shallow DOF is understandable if the scene is a tabletop miniature, but you would never get away with representing it as a lunar landscape. The DOF could be improved by stopping down the lens aperture, but you would lose the blooming effect on the sun (it would get smaller due to decreased exposure, and you would lose most of the lens flare. That's all I have for now. Could you elaborate as to what "Shallow Depth of Field" means a little more? I plan on building another tabletop lunar miniature and I'd like to take realistic photos for fun. So if I start with the miniature, what is the process I should go through, in detail, to make my photos look like they were taken on the surface of the moon? Check out the first link given above by Trebor, or, if you really want to do this properly and see the sort of (mathematical) complexity involved in just this single aspect, try this (eek!).. If you are using a miniature you are going to have a lot of trouble with that aspect as your camera will be quite close to the subject, which reduces the apparent depth of field - all other things being equal.. The other things? - different cameras have different sensor/film sizes, can be fitted with different lenses with different focal lengths, and then can be set with different aperture settings, and finally focused on the region of interest. ALL of those things affect the 'depth of field', and they interlock in complex ways. So the fact that you are shooting a miniature will be given away in ways you may not expect. Almost all aspects of the camera setup have visible characteristics and telltales - so if you try to pretend you are shooting medium format film, when you actually shoot with a 35mm or small compact digital, it will be spotted. Similarly, if you say that something is distant and it isn't, or you say the lens was set at f8 when it was really f4... again, the truth will be spotted in numerous ways. I'm not just talking about EXIF data (which can be faked reasonably easily and doesn't apply to film images anyway) - a lot of this comes back to photogrammetry including very subtle visible characteristics like noise/grain textures, even the nature, as well as amount of the blurriness of distant v. nearby objects (eg Google 'bokeh' and 'circles of confusion'). Someone with wide experience with cameras will spot this stuff in a split second, and if it faced real forensic investigation.. not a chance. And of course all of the original Apollo film frames have been available for public and scientific scrutiny since the missions came back... The NASA folks have very happily allowed the film to be re-scanned as technology has gotten better over the years, sometimes revealing details that were not spotted at the time of the missions (eg Venus in some frames). And we haven't even started on the lighting. You're going to need a single, very bright, very distant light source (eg the Sun would work well ...) and it will have to match the apparent diameter of the sun, otherwise... well, look up 'penumbra'.. Best of luck! PS - sorry for jumping the gun, AtomicDog!
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 1, 2012 6:20:23 GMT -4
Hi - first post please be nice. Have a look at these two NASA Apollo 17 photos: AS17-134-20385HR AS17-134-20387HR Does this strike anyone else as weird? Either the earth is there or it's not... Any thoughts? It is quite obvious that the angle of the photography has been changed. The camera, and the astronaut with it mounted on his chest, has moved a bit. Correct. But Vincent, it's probably worth checking the date of the posts before replying. That one was well over a year back and was answered quite quickly and comprehensively, so it's probably not worth much effort / resurrection. Especially given that fflame never posted again... Which sorta reinforces my point on your other thread. Fflame obviously wasn't genuinely interested at all and didn't even bother acknowledging the effort that people made to explain what was a trivially simple situation - and quite politely. The fact that s/he didn't return make the words 'shallow' and 'ungrateful' spring to mind...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 1, 2012 6:09:45 GMT -4
Are you kidding? I don't have a YouTube account. And the creator of this site has been gone since long before I got here, having been so embarrassed at his errors. I think that last point is a key one. In my time around various forums where Apollo deniers hang out, I can recall seeing a few (maybe six-seven off the top of my head) people who were originally sure it was a hoax, but gradually came to see the light.. Vincent, you mentioned a couple, and there's you.. But I also noticed quite a few deniers who just seemed to fade away, often after showing signs that they were reflecting upon their initial viewpoint. And I suspect that is because of that embarrassment. Sadly, many people would much rather run away or hide, than admit error. Kudos to you for having the courage to follow it through. So I'm sure the number is much greater - and there is an absolute wealth of documentation available to the fence sitter who might stumble over the idiots like Jarrah.. If they simply take the time to do their homework, they will find the truth. That documentation is not only the stuff from the Apollo program itself - which has to be one of the most open and copiously documented projects in history - but there are also the numerous sites like this one (and Bob's, Jay's etc), that contain comprehensive refutations of *every* hoax-proponent's claim. It does seem to me that the Apollo denial is pretty much dead in the water. The number of genuine hoax proponents has now dwindled to a few vocal loonies (& often profligate sockpuppeteers - so desperate are they to pretend that they are part of a crowd..) like Patrick1K/Fattydash/DoctorTea, and then the odd newcomer who stumbles over it and has a brief fling... At the moment (witness the Patrick1000 thing at JREF), it is embarrassing to watch how low they have sunk, how shallow their knowledge is, how desperately they avoid facts, how laughably they pretend qualifications when they very obviously have none.. and how willing they are to lie... Just an aside about the photography thing.. I was just a very eager and fascinated youngster at the time of Apollo, but shortly after Apollo 11, in late 1969, there were already large posters around containing huge blowups of numerous Apollo photographs, including the famous (and slightly crooked and poorly composed/cropped) Aldrin image. While I didn't buy a poster, I did eagerly grab a copy of a glossy booklet that came out with many Australian newspapers, titled Man on the Moon. The front cover was a *very* nice 12"x10" enlargement of that same image, straightened and edited slightly to fix the poor cropping (added black space at the top). I still have that booklet - it's a prized possession. At the time I knew little about photography, and just noticed that it was a beautifully sharp image showing minor grain effects at that size... But later in life I became a wedding and portrait photographer using medium format gear, including a Hasselblad just like the one used to take that shot (not the exact lens, but near enough). I also used the almost identical Ektachrome emulsion quite frequently. And at that time, I recognised all the telltales of the Apollo images - the exact grain texture and size, the 'look' of Ekta 160 when shot in the Hass (contrast, color balance, sharpness, 'halo') - even the look of the lens, inc the characteristic flaring (made worse by the Apollo reseau plates), along with the depth of field and sharpness/blur to be expected at those shutter speeds. And so on.. Even now, with all the image processing tools we have at our disposal, faking the entire Apollo still photography record would be simply unthinkable, and that is just a tiny part of the entire documentary record. And then, on that very image, you can even verify the position of the tiny blue Earth reflected in Aldrin's visor... Needless to say, your images are interesting attempts but fail on many levels, starting with the depth of field problems and the lens flare which just isn't realistic or Hasselblad-ish - then there would be lighting/shadow problems like penumbral effects, grain effects (on full-res versions) and so on. For the Apollo denier, the devil is in the detail.. Every detail is correct. The vast majority of their claims are based upon a lamentable lack of knowledge of how conditions are *different* on the lunar surface (not counting trolling!). And those conditions are so different that they were (and mostly still are) completely unfakable. It's over...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 28, 2011 5:49:15 GMT -4
For me it takes one day per mission to prepare images exactly like the Apollo pictures ... I only need LM and space suites - and few puictures of CM and Earth... It's been a week since Tsialkovsky's boast. Not one photo has been offered in support of his abilities to prepare images that are identical to the Apollo photos. Maybe he is suddenly too busy exposing some other conspiracies to provide even this basic support for his claim of a moon hoax. But we await his return with evidence of what he says would be a simple task. So will Tsialkovsky simply move on to a less demanding community? Will he come back when his embarrassment at being caught in such an ill considered boast has subsided, in the vain hope that we will have forgotten? Or just perhaps, will he withdraw his claim? Only time will tell. Or is he, perhaps, waiting a month..? in the forlorn hope that maybe LO will forget the requirement here, that Tsialkovsky failed to meet. Tsialkovsky seems to be unable to admit errors, and also unable to withdraw or apologise for false accusations... I'm forming a picture... and no photoshop is required.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 27, 2011 7:47:41 GMT -4
Not really my area, but seeing no-one else is chirping up.. maybe Sketchup? It does 3d pretty well, can save in eps/pdf as well as many other formats and has a scripting language.. But beyond that, I have no idea whether it is even remotely suitable..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 22, 2011 7:46:55 GMT -4
Tsialkovsky, as it seems you won't be admitting your errors, I guess you must be slaving over your CGI workstation - that one you have been using since the 60's and 70's. So how are the example images coming along?
Do you need some help? I'm actually pretty handy with photoshop, and .. well.. I suspect you might need it...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 18, 2011 2:11:09 GMT -4
Tsialkovsky, I'd like to provide a summary of your 'contributions'. Do take a look at what follows. Perhaps a bit of self reflection might be in order...Also, I find it very good for the soul to admit my errors and apologise for wasting people's time, on those (rare! ) occasions when I post incorrect information. I also find that behavior to be a good indication of the moral turpitude of the person - those who can admit error and learn are good people and effective researchers/investigators, while those who avoid such admission and try to divert/deflect attention... well, you tell us. I'm finding it rather difficult to find where you have acknowledged ANY of your many and glaring errors, and even more difficult to see where you have learnt anything... To start with your very first post, and first claim: This has been proven completely incorrect by the facts and figures that are readily available for the S-IC, S-II and S-IVB stages of the Saturn V (it's all quite well-documented in the Wiki even - if you claim any of that is wrong POINT OUT exactly what is false, or withdraw that cowardly claim..). All the calculations can be made by anyone with a bit of knowledge - you could start learning about this by visiting Bob B's excellent pages at www.braeunig.us/space/index.htmBtw, that claim is made all the more embarrassing by the fact that thousands, nay millions of people saw all the launches, and then many also watched/tracked the spacecraft both in orbit and on the way to the moon... Those launches included Apollo 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (all with incremental changes and improvements leading up to the successful manned landing), then 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. And then there were the Mercury and Gemini missions that led up to that, then Skylab afterwards... All documented and witnessed by multitudes. Your second claim was: That is simply ludicrous. Perhaps you should start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Bedsteadand then follow up by actually researching the LLRV and LLTV PROPERLY. In particular, see if you can find out how many successful flights there were, and how the program developed. Perhaps here: www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htmif you are ready to start on research that goes beyond Wiki... And quite apart from the 'bedstead' that had to work in SIX TIMES the gravity and also battle wind gusts.., may I ask how old you REALLY are, Tsialkovsky? Are you seriously unaware of the numerous OTHER craft from numerous countries that have used VTOL, dating back to the 50's and even earlier? Eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1127Recognise that aircraft shape? Note the dates... And yet you claim that it couldn't be done in '69 and that still today we can't do it...? I'm going to pause there for your response, Tsialkovsky. After looking at the above, if all you have is your dismissive one liners and a change of topic, then it makes it even clearer why you are here. It is certainly not for any sensible or reasoned discussion.Perhaps more importantly, the fact that you have got SO MANY basics wrong and that you do not acknowledge the errors you have made tells me that I should probably not bother going further.. But please prove me wrong, Tsialkovsky. Address, IN DETAIL, the two topics above. And if you do that I'll move on to the next few, including the now classic (and laughable): I once again note that you didn't say "some of"... and at no point have you conceded that this is completely untrue. So show us how brave you are, Tsialkovsky, and actually ADMIT you were either UNinformed, MISinformed, or trying to mislead the forum. Which was it? BTW, Several other folks have asked you questions. How about answering them? While you are doing that, please cite recognised authorities to support your handwaves, there's a good chap...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 14, 2011 5:05:38 GMT -4
...the pics were produced in 1990s (..sits here browsing numerous Apollo souvenir publications bought in 1969-1971..) Tsi alkovsky (oh, how twee!), I hereby admit my knowledge of neurosurgery is almost non-existent. (Stay with me..) That's why I don't frequent neurosurgery forums and make a complete xxxx fool of myself by posting ridiculous and completely uninformed claims of the type that can be disproven within nanoseconds... Is there something there that you could learn from, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 4, 2011 2:35:45 GMT -4
Yep, I think it was us Aussies, iirc. We're used to noticing upside down things, of course, being down under.. (groan)
But my comment about Ed Fendell was in regard to his getting the LM launch pan timing correct on Apollo 17 - I was agreeing with Dwight's second point, but didn't make myself all that clear, sorry..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 4, 2011 2:29:56 GMT -4
Playdor, given that MANY of the topics you raised (actually.. ALL) have been explained to you in some detail, and that you have even seemed to acknowledge that you were wrong on one or two.. how about we go through them and you tell us which ones you were mistaken on, and which ones are still convincing to you..?
If that's all too hard, why not commit to your favorite?
Go on, be brave. Tell us which, to you, is the absolutely most compelling 'evidence'.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Nov 30, 2011 8:18:00 GMT -4
My favourite moment: When the B&W TV images flicker to life on Apollo 11. Followed closely by the Apollo 17 LM launch. Same. I vividly remember watching as a kid, trying to work out what the heck the image was.. and then the ahah moment when they upsided the image! And cheers to Ed Fendell for finally getting it right, just in time..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Nov 21, 2011 8:33:16 GMT -4
I think the guy in charge of the special effects in 2001 is Brian Johnson, Kubrick was the director, Johnson is the creator of the popular Eagle spacecraft of Space:1999 in the movie 2001 he made the moon ships and the moonbase, he worked at Pinewood Studios and he never said anything about a moon hoax, he gives interviews but most of the people ask him about his popular ship and Tv show. Kubrick never did any special effects in the moon in the movie 2001 he was the supervisor, Johnson was in charge but he didnĀ“t get any credit for this www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/crguide/vcs.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Johnson_(special_effects)Going a bit offtopic, but what made you think that Johnson was in charge of the effects in 2001? As far as I always understood, Douglas Trumbull* was the effects supervisor. The only references to Johnson I can find relate to some work he did on the lunar base scenes.. As a 2001 fanboi, I'd be interested to know more, if you have conflicting info... OK, back to your normal programming.. * also known for Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Blade Runner, Silent Running and Brainstorm (not a bad resume..)
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Nov 18, 2011 6:41:19 GMT -4
Playdor, when you have finished (or tired of) all this ducking and weaving er.. reasoned debate, would you do me a very simple favour?
Tell me what, in your opinion, is the VERY BEST 'evidence' you have seen (and analysed, of course) for Apollo being hoaxed.
And then.. tell me if you would be prepared to focus solely on that evidence for a complete and full analysis with all points being agreed and/or conceded by proper cites and references, and no new topics thrown in to distract.
Alternatively, if you feel that the most convincing topic HAS ALREADY been fully and properly covered, could you tell me..
..which one that would be?
Because I confess I'm finding it just a tad difficult to find some coherency (let alone competence) in your debate so far.
Now surely this would be a good thing for you, as you could *prove* without a doubt that your methodology is sound, your knowledge is adequate, and your claim is correct...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Nov 14, 2011 8:44:45 GMT -4
This may be out of line (but.. too bad!). Before responding further, I would most respectfully suggest that readers take a look at a certain poster's first few .. er .. contributions. I quoth, emphasis mine.. Very first post: Right-oh... Second post(sound familiar, at all?) Third postEr, right.. 'anyone' who 'does not know anything about ..apollo'? Oh, wait.. Yes, took him just 3 days to learn how to 'analyse' ascent and descent sequences, and just 3 posts to start attacking the 'debunkers'.. And then just two hours later, he is 'analysing' (term used *VERY* loosely!) apollo mpg files, and confidently reposting getting it completely wrong. Oh, and a quick question for playdor.. why do you keep *changing* your spellings? My belief in you as a genuine enquirer has disipated dissapated... Seriously, folks, read all his posts. And then decide how much time you should spend 'helping' him. But he did make the following statements I don't take issue with: Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Nov 4, 2011 19:43:03 GMT -4
|
|