|
Post by stutefish on Dec 17, 2011 13:10:44 GMT -4
I have to wonder how much of Tsialkovsky's problem is an "in Soviet Russia..." problem.
In the early 70s, any American boy of 10 years, with some combination of a subscription to Boy's Life magazine, or whose parents subscribed to National Geographic or LIFE, or who had a library card, could probably figure out how to get their hands on as much Apollo photographic record as they cared to. They'd probably have to write some letters, and maybe save up their allowance for a few weeks or something, but the task for them would be essentially trivial.
I'm not so sure a similar boy in the Soviet Union would have even the faintest conceptual notion of what kinds of material the US government and social institutions might make readily available to every citizen as a matter of course (and perhaps even as a point of pride).
But I could be wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 17, 2011 14:15:16 GMT -4
Could it be that it's just not possible to uniformly illuminate a large set with just one spotlight set back at a sufficient distance? Almost certainly. I'm not quite an expert, but remember that any lighting you use wouldn't just be lighting the stuff you wanted. It would be lighting the offcamera stuff, too. They'd have to be able to see what was going on, see what they were doing. And any light they used would show up on camera.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 17, 2011 14:23:50 GMT -4
My touchstone moment at the moment is from "Apollo 13" (1995). Tom Hanks dreaming he is on the Moon, and picks up a handful of lunar soil. And the moment he pours a little from his hand the illusion shattered in a cloud of, well, dust. I had exactly the same reaction from that scene. But it wasn't just the dust. The lighting wasn't right either. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen the lighting in a fictional lunar scene match actual Apollo images. Even Magnificent Desolation had that problem, especially in the fictional "rover wipeout" sequence near the end. The lighting is too soft; it just doesn't look like sunlight. I'm not sure why, as you'd think it would be simple to use one very bright spotlight and to cover the studio walls and ceiling with black fabric to block scattering. Could it be that it's just not possible to uniformly illuminate a large set with just one spotlight set back at a sufficient distance? Actually, I had it wrong. I'm not sure what was used in Apollo 13 but I was also a bit confused by how well I could see into the helmet (understandable, but still...) It was "From the Earth to the Moon" where they created a single source by shooting four of the biggest HMI's they could buy -- 4KW monsters, if I remember -- at a single mirror. It was apparently very hot on that stage. I admit to mild confusion, since the principles are the same whether you have a thousand-lumen source or a 2-lumen source. But I don't imagine there is that much leeway in standard lenses, and illumination is directly (and inversely) related to depth of field, so it probably was necessary to pump that much light at the scene. That, and if you did light with a candle you'd have to control all the monitors and clip lights and every other bit of leakage around the sound stage, so it also helps to have a Really Big Light.
|
|
vq
Earth
What time is it again?
Posts: 129
|
Post by vq on Dec 17, 2011 17:51:27 GMT -4
Actually, I had it wrong. I'm not sure what was used in Apollo 13 but I was also a bit confused by how well I could see into the helmet (understandable, but still...) It was "From the Earth to the Moon" where they created a single source by shooting four of the biggest HMI's they could buy -- 4KW monsters, if I remember -- at a single mirror. It was apparently very hot on that stage. I admit to mild confusion, since the principles are the same whether you have a thousand-lumen source or a 2-lumen source. But I don't imagine there is that much leeway in standard lenses, and illumination is directly (and inversely) related to depth of field, so it probably was necessary to pump that much light at the scene. That, and if you did light with a candle you'd have to control all the monitors and clip lights and every other bit of leakage around the sound stage, so it also helps to have a Really Big Light. Plus it is probably easier to put together a Really Big Light than to make softer single-point lighting look harsh using cameras designed for typical set lighting.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 17, 2011 21:30:36 GMT -4
And then there's dynamic range.
You want to, after all, have the camera's best capture -- and all the depth of field and speed to capture motion -- where the lighting is all the bounce off a 20% bounce sheet (the ground). You want, to make it look right, for the highlights where raw sunlight touches white suit to be nicely over-exposed.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 17, 2011 21:32:58 GMT -4
Oh, and there's another thing 3d doesn't do well. Halos. The interaction of light with a surface that causes that lovely rim lighting effect in the real world doesn't happen in most render engines. Nor does 3d look like film, of course -- add more render time and sophisticated software to film-ize it. (Yeah, I know, there's a technical term for it but I'm between shows and pushed for time).
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 17, 2011 23:18:52 GMT -4
I have to wonder how much of Tsialkovsky's problem is an "in Soviet Russia..." problem. In the early 70s, any American boy of 10 years, with some combination of a subscription to Boy's Life magazine, or whose parents subscribed to National Geographic or LIFE, or who had a library card, could probably figure out how to get their hands on as much Apollo photographic record as they cared to. They'd probably have to write some letters, and maybe save up their allowance for a few weeks or something, but the task for them would be essentially trivial. I'm not so sure a similar boy in the Soviet Union would have even the faintest conceptual notion of what kinds of material the US government and social institutions might make readily available to every citizen as a matter of course (and perhaps even as a point of pride). But I could be wrong about that. stutefish, I think that's some of it. The rest, I suppose, is the modern assumption that if it doesn't exist on the internet, it doesn't exist period. So, by definition, Apollo photos didn't exist before the mid 90s. If Tsialkovsky is still reading this thread, I will put to him one more time - Brown University has a list of a number of books dedicated solely to Apollo photographs published in the 1970s. How do you account for these?
|
|
|
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 nomuse on Dec 18, 2011 16:33:15 GMT -4
I think what's really ticking me off is Tchaikovsky's seeming claim that all of the Apollo imagery could be faked on the computer by this simple method he feels obligated to explain to those who didn't think of it.
This requires one of two things, both equally insulting:
It requires either that the Apollo images shown to the world (and collected by many of us at the time) were laughably bad, the sort of thing that would in other circumstances have the silhouettes of two robots and a guy in a jumpsuit appearing in front of them. And somehow nobody ever noticed this.
Or, it requires that the entire computer arts industry, including games and Hollywood, are filled with morons who hadn't realized they could improve the state of the art of 3d with a few simple tricks.
(Yes, I know. I'm striking Nutcracker this eve, okay?)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 16:59:41 GMT -4
I think all conspiracy claims require someone to be stupid. It's just who and how many people. The problem with Apollo claims, and the reason I've never been able to make a "working" conspiracy out of it, is that it requires practically everyone to be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 18, 2011 18:03:05 GMT -4
The trouble with CTs is that they've never heard of the "sucker rule" and so keep falling for it. Quite sad really.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 18, 2011 19:39:31 GMT -4
I think all conspiracy claims require someone to be stupid. It's just who and how many people. The problem with Apollo claims, and the reason I've never been able to make a "working" conspiracy out of it, is that it requires practically everyone to be stupid. Yeah, such as trying to pass off a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock. Is there a list of stupid things that HBs have accused NASA of perpetrating in the name of the moon hoax?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 19:40:06 GMT -4
My, but that would be a long list.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 18, 2011 22:37:47 GMT -4
Ah, but sometimes the seeming stupidity is due to a "whistleblower." And don't look at the men behind that particular curtain; the boss and political officer who were too dumb to notice the big Clue the whistleblower put in, or all the general public and neutral observers who didn't notice the clue either (maybe it is like a fnord for conspiracy believers; only they can see it?) And of course the whistleblower him or herself, who apparently never saw a thriller or spy movie and hasn't managed to think of an anonymous letter or a self-addressed package or tapes in a safe deposit vault or any of the other usual tricks.
It strikes me that this construct of the Apollo Deniers, this "whistleblower" who doesn't blow any actual whistles, is comrade in arms with those other fictional constructs; the serial killer who leaves elaborate clues in the form of word games, or the pirate who hides a treasure and leaves a map bristling with literary allusions and primitive cryptography.
Its all so the average Joe -- the one who every now and then solves the Scramble in their daily paper -- can think that this occasional competence in mundane trivia could actually, in the right circumstance, allow them to outwit the baddies, get the girl, and save the world.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 19, 2011 2:55:24 GMT -4
I wonder how much is stupid and how much is a stance cos its fashionable (or desirable for that person). Google has made a lot of "experts" experts in their opinion.
I know there are a few out there a few sandwiches short of a picnic but quite a few come across a reasonably switched on, albeit a couple of diodes have blown and belligerence is their middle name.
|
|