|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 21, 2011 7:01:33 GMT -4
wow1 A lot of HBs have claimed that this area of Hawaii is the place where a lot of the photos were taken. Because of the volcanic activity around the time of Apollo 17, comparing the photos to be exact to later photos would be faulted. Also the size of the Earth in the photos taken from the moon's surface shouldn't be the exact size of the moon taken from the surface of the Earth. So many HBs have claimed. But how many of them have actually gone there to look for themselves? Are the number of claims representative of real work or are they just parroting others claims? The experience on this board suggests the latter is more prevalent. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 21, 2011 7:02:16 GMT -4
Also the size of the Earth in the photos taken from the moon's surface shouldn't be the exact size of the moon taken from the surface of the Earth. Are they the same size? |
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 21, 2011 9:23:27 GMT -4
Also the size of the Earth in the photos taken from the moon's surface shouldn't be the exact size of the moon taken from the surface of the Earth. So many HBs have claimed. The size of the Earth in photos depends on the focal length of the camera. Others have done the math and shown the Earth appeared the correct size. HBs wrong yet again. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 21, 2011 11:31:49 GMT -4
What's the "exact size" of the moon taken from earth? I've seen photos where it's tiny (mostly taken by myself trying to be artistic and failing dismally). Photos by people with the correct camera set-up can make the moon look gigantic compared to the foreground.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 21, 2011 11:55:37 GMT -4
What's the "exact size" of the moon taken from earth? I've seen photos where it's tiny (mostly taken by myself trying to be artistic and failing dismally). Photos by people with the correct camera set-up can make the moon look gigantic compared to the foreground. The "correct camera set-up" only exists in reference to a specific photographic objective. If I'm configured to capture a wide field of view of the terrain in my immediate vicinity, I'm going to accept relatively poor resolution of more distant objects. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 21, 2011 12:12:58 GMT -4
Right. I meant correct as in "correct setup to achieve the goal of showing a large moon over the foreground".
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 21, 2011 12:47:11 GMT -4
If the Moon looks 'gigantic' it's most likely a double exposure or image overlay/combination where the Moon was photographed at a longer focal length than the foreground. This one was certainly done like that:  |
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 21, 2011 12:58:30 GMT -4
It's also worth pointing out that the lovely "earth rising" photograph, from Apollo 8, was possible due to a long focal length and the lack of any near-foreground material.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 21, 2011 13:02:48 GMT -4
Your example is almost certainly a composite image, assuming it's not a 'trick' wall with forced perspective. But you don't have to make a composite to make the moon appear huge. Just stand far enough back to capture your foreground and the moon in the right proportions and all you really need is a lens with a very long focal length.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 21, 2011 13:09:40 GMT -4
Your example is almost certainly a composite image, assuming it's not a 'trick' wall with forced perspective. But you don't have to make a composite to make the moon appear huge. Just stand far enough back to capture your foreground and the moon in the right proportions and all you really need is a lens with a very long focal length. But the "tell" there would be the flattened field of the wall itself. In the photo above, the wall recedes into the edges of the frame, which indicates a shorter focal length and closer proximity to the subject. One could approximate the composition, as you suggest, but, in this example, it would be very difficult to duplicate. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 21, 2011 13:37:04 GMT -4
Sure, there's a "tell". But the point was, there is no one "size" of the moon in a photograph. Different lenses, different angles,will make it look a different size. So, you can't just eyeball a photograph and say, the Earth is the "wrong size" in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 21, 2011 15:28:17 GMT -4
Hi, hal. Welcome to the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 21, 2011 16:11:11 GMT -4
Re Hawaii -- for the Apollo Deniers, it is sufficient that it looks 75% like some part of the Moon, or that by using it as a background they can explain 75% of a single picture. The remaining details are simply waved away, regardless of whether they are the kind of details that can be waved away (like shrubbery) or that are extremely difficult (like kicking up dust in a non-vacuum).
Speaking of shrubbery, there's an amusing account on the DVD of what they had to go through to make the lifeless desert setting of the Doctor Who episode "Planet of the Dead." Many, many days of a large team of laborers pulling plants all the way out to the camera horizon. Then sweeping, which had to be repeated at regular intervals. And the cast and crew were all kept behind barriers so they wouldn't disturb the sand. And they started this process in the middle of an already extremely stark-looking desert in Dubai.
One of the many problems I have in considering more than one photograph being faked on the Moon is that between shots, you'd have to somehow clean up after the crew yet manage to get every footstep and every pebble back into the right position.
But then, the hoax believers only consider the pictures in isolation. To them, it is perfectly plausible that one iconic image was constructed in the darkroom from multiple layers. They completely ignore the pictures immediately following and preceding on the roll, which show the same subjects but from such a wide variety of angles as to make it simple to reconstruct the three dimensional geometry of the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 16:11:24 GMT -4
That's a really obviously fake picture, too. There are all kinds of problems with it. You'd think no Apollo denier had ever looked at a picture ostensibly taken on Earth and thought, "That's really fake" before, because they don't seem to realize how instinctive that reaction can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 21, 2011 17:06:02 GMT -4
It's also instructive how many times a critic will say "That CGI looked really fake" in reference to a movie scene that included no CGI whatsoever. Or how many times they will miss the small but effective trickery that happens all the time in scenes that aren't rampaging dinosaurs or crashing spaceships. Such as mat extensions, or the digital removal of television aerials from rooftops in a period shot, and so on.
|
|
