|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 29, 2005 21:00:30 GMT -4
JayUtah never fails to amaze at his breadth of knowledge
Yes, but what we really have to question is why we have to put up with groaners like, "At any rate,"...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 29, 2005 21:04:41 GMT -4
You might have a defective disc. Pixelation occurs in MPEG rendering if some bits go awry. And believe it or not, that can affect video for up to 30 seconds.My DVD looks the same. The Apollo 12 video shows severe compression artifacts whenever there is a lot of motion. The frame captures turbo posted are during the time Al was taking the camera off the MESA and, um, pointing it into the Sun. The camera pans across what I take to be the S-band erectable antenna, but which turbo says looks like a bare arm holding a pole. I have noticed in the past that the surface video sequences in Spacecraft Film's DVDs tended to show more compression artifacts than the sequences taken from film. Jay, you were demonstrating recently how mostly-flat JPEG backgrounds often have such compression artifacts. I wonder if the MPEG compressors have trouble with the very low bandwidth Apollo video? To put some numbers on it, DVD can have up to a 5.4 MHz video bandwidth, as I remember, but the Apollo video tops out at around 0.9 MHz. Does DCT compression count on having enough image detail to hide the macroblocks? OK - this is the kind of thing I'm looking for - possible options for what I see as the "bare arm" holding a "support post". I'm glad you have the DVD to compare with mine. S-band erectable antenna - the "support post" that I see definitely is comparable to the distal section of the antenna rod, with the conical end. I have put all the stills of the "arm" together into a consective sequence to show the movement of the "arm" moving about while holding the "post". The "arm" looks to be grasping the "post" while moving about. Link is here - www.pixparty.com/turbonium/index.asp click directly onto the bottom left video window to see the "stills" sequence. Click on the single top video window to see the original video clip of the "arm" moving. This clip does not show the sequence with the "post" coming up from the bottom of the frame, as it occurs a little later in the original video clip. I added it to the "stills" movie to better show what the "arm" is holding and moving.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 29, 2005 21:15:33 GMT -4
Here is the "arm" in question - this is a still from the online video....pic 1 enlarged, pic 2 enlarged more and cropped...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 29, 2005 21:41:25 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 29, 2005 23:29:45 GMT -4
Here is what I see as two "people" and a black panel above them.What you are looking at is this area here right above the MESA, marked with the blue arrow: Above the MESA
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 29, 2005 23:52:21 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 30, 2005 0:06:05 GMT -4
What you need to do turbo, is watch the entire sequence on the DVD keeping the picture I posted handy. You will see all the structures along the side of the LM, all the way from the steerable antenna on top down to the aluminum bars (whatever they are called), to your "black patch", to the gold foil. Keep in mind too the scale of what you are cropping and enlarging in these images.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 0:31:44 GMT -4
The camera does about a 260 degree pan around the area - I'm posting another still which is after the camera has panned to the right. It shows what I see as a "task chair" in light brown, and what looks like a man sitting in one above that in a chair. There also looks like there is a "monitor" on a desk or something....then the camera pans to the left where the "panel" is - I don't see the gold foil still.....
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 30, 2005 9:30:58 GMT -4
The herringbone pattern may also be an artifact of the field-sequential transmission process. The "color" television camera was really a black-and-white camera with rotating color filters to send alternated red, green, and blue frames. The frames were combined on Earth into a color signal. But where the movement is rapid the frames have a noticeable disparity. That's normal.
As for "seeing things" I'm afraid that's what the human eye is especially adept at doing. Part of the fantastic visual acuity of homo sapiens includes the ability to identify objects using a relatively small number of cues, and to see objects in the abstract. (Art wouldn't work otherwise.) Unfortunately that leads to a lot of false positives.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 30, 2005 10:11:30 GMT -4
No offence meant to anyone, but I have an irresistable compulsion to resurrect the best one-liner ever at the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, along with, naturally, full applause for the genius who coined it, Harald Kucharek, on 12 July 2004. ;D Ta-daaaaaa: "...Twinkies often refer to pretty bad prints or scans to do their rorschaching"Edited to add the link to Harald's full post about Kipp Teague's wonderful new scans from Apollo 11: www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=296192#296192
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 30, 2005 10:39:04 GMT -4
JayUtah never fails to amaze at his breadth of knowledge
True, but even more amazing is his ability to convey what he knows about highly technical matters or abstract concepts in a way that almost anyone can understand it.
Thanks, Jay! I've already had a great day at 2:30am, because I've learnt something new.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 30, 2005 11:08:05 GMT -4
kiwi I'm not ignoring your info - the fact is that it was phantomwolf who brought that subject over here from another forum where I was posting.. It was not my intention of discussing the stars issue here in the first place - so please don't get antsy about it if I forgot to post back about the stars. I do appreciate the effort you are putting in to answer my questions, so don't feel it's a waste of your time. OK? Thanks. Good points. If I sounded a little harsh it's because it looked like things were shaping up the way sts60 later described: Just be aware that many, many such "anomalous" bits have been waved by some pretty obnoxious HBers, who went on and on about how one odd-looking shadow conclusively proved Apollo to be a fake, only to be thoroughly dismantled by some of the resident experts here.
You have been quite civil so far, I hasten to add, and welcome to the board. It's just that a lot of the people we've seen have made up for their complete lack of relevant knowledge with an enormous amount of arrogance, and have been impervious to all attempts at educating them. If the latter sounds kind of snooty, consider that a number of regulars here have put a great deal of time into understanding the Apollo record, and into reconstructing scenarios in some detail. Also, some are engineers, electronics wizards, or thoroughly competent photographers.So this time I decided to be a killjoy early on and try to stop things turning out the way they so often have for us regulars. Glad to see you don't appear to be in the same league as some of the dopes we've had the misfortune to deal with. As I said here: "Most hoax-believers behave in a highly predictable manner. They are sometimes amusing, but mostly just frustratingly obstreperous, obstinate and obtuse obfuscators." And just to prove I'm not a joyless curmudgeon, see Apollo Astronauts - Joking Around.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 30, 2005 12:48:08 GMT -4
The herringbone pattern may also be an artifact of the field-sequential transmission process.
It may be. I cannot rule out any other causes of a strobing effect. Various PDFs on the Apollo video systems (in addition to Bill Wood's recent writeup) discuss the herringbone pattern and attribute it to radio interference between the subcarriers within the unified S-band signal. As a ham operator in my youth, I plead guilty to causing exactly that radio interference pattern on many of our neighbors' TV sets. (If they were lucky, that is. If I was on 10 meters, my second harmonic would probably take out channel 2 completely.)
In the case of the Apollo 12 video, the herringbone pattern shows up before Al Bean gets to the camera to unmount it and while the image is steady. In fact, I wondered if the interference might be caused by his VHF signal getting into the camera as he gets close to it. I'll have to watch the earlier sequences with Pete Conrad to see if it appears when he is at the MESA.
Part of the fantastic visual acuity of homo sapiens includes the ability to identify objects using a relatively small number of cues, and to see objects in the abstract. (Art wouldn't work otherwise.)
I am not knowledgeable about art, but I used to think Impressionism was a joke, producing paintings that a 7-year-old might make. I have come to appreciate that instead of capturing the majority of the detail that may be available in a scene, the Impressionists lay down on canvas those sketchy few details we tend to pick up as we glance at a scene. I think they exhibit a solid understanding of what we aspects of our environments we actually see in typical circumstances.
Turbonium is being led astray by those conspiracy theorists whose idea of image analysis is to keep cropping and enlarging images until something suspicious appears. Your goal should be understanding, and that requires you to maintain and be cognizant of the context. Cropping it just throws away valuable information.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 17:55:23 GMT -4
The herringbone pattern may also be an artifact of the field-sequential transmission process. The "color" television camera was really a black-and-white camera with rotating color filters to send alternated red, green, and blue frames. The frames were combined on Earth into a color signal. But where the movement is rapid the frames have a noticeable disparity. That's normal. As for "seeing things" I'm afraid that's what the human eye is especially adept at doing. Part of the fantastic visual acuity of homo sapiens includes the ability to identify objects using a relatively small number of cues, and to see objects in the abstract. (Art wouldn't work otherwise.) Unfortunately that leads to a lot of false positives. Hi jay - I've been delayed on my trip until Friday so I've had time to check back here. So, what is it exactly that we have got here in these pics? For the life of me, I can't come with any alternatives other than my descirptions. There are quite a number of things that I would like to find explanations for that I can't find in my research to date. I wonder if a comprehensive list of the equipment for Apollo 12 is available.....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 18:13:07 GMT -4
Note to kiwi: Thx, all that is water under the proverbial bridge. I'm just an inquisitive person, looking for straight answers on a variety of subjects which interest me. I certainly don't have an agenda regarding this - I admire the Apollo astronauts as men of very high morals and character. These inquiries are certainly not meant to be an attempt at tarnishing their admirable careers. But I don't shy away from something if it seems out of place to me - that's really all I'm doing with this issue...
Actually, as an extension of what I said just above, I really do not, and never have, become a follower of "conspiracy theorists" who try and prove their point through selective editing and/or manipulation of photos/videos. These stills were actually first brought up by myself, to my knowledge, anywhere on the net. I did a very extensive and thorough search for anything discussing this footage some months ago, and absolutely nothing came up.
That didn't worry me or make me think it wasn't worth "presenting to the world", so to speak. In fact, it encouraged me to do so, because all of this information is coming originally from me, not a second hand conspiracy site, or what have you. It does not, of course, make my case to be God's own truth - but it does offer me the advantage of not relying on somebody else's work or sources for clarification.
Having said that, the only cropping I have done is to focus in (by crop and/or zoom) on the anomalies which I see in the stills. But I always make sure to show the original, unedited still frame beforehand. There is no "trickery" I have done to these stills, as you can check for yourself by watching the online video that was my source of these frames. That would be defeating the whole purpose of this presentation, of course.
|
|