|
Post by earthorbit on Jul 14, 2005 10:31:17 GMT -4
What is at the top of this picture? Are those overhead studio lights?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 11:21:20 GMT -4
What is at the top of this picture? Sunstrike, which isn't at all surprising, since it's the first frame on that roll. No. And if you knew anything about the numbering of Apollo photographs, you'd know that as15-20147456 is not a valid ID number. This is AS15-89-12015.
|
|
|
Post by earthorbit on Jul 14, 2005 11:28:21 GMT -4
Thank you for correcting that error.
I was going by the number on the url, my mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 12:04:31 GMT -4
Thank you for correcting that error. And what about your erronious identification of studio lights?
|
|
|
Post by earthorbit on Jul 14, 2005 12:05:46 GMT -4
Don't they look like studio lights to you?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 14, 2005 12:07:53 GMT -4
The dupe masters sometimes have writing in the margins. The archivists frequently write the ID numbers in so that they can easily find them on the roll. This scan has captured a bit of the margin. The bright, blurry-edged shaft is sunstrike.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 13:09:33 GMT -4
Don't they look like studio lights to you? No, particularly since this is the first frame of a pan, and the following 3 frames, which overlap the area of the "lights", show no sign of their existence: The following image shows 12015 outlined in yellow, with the framing of the following 3 shots superimposed in red, green, and blue, respectively. Click the image for an animated GIF (569kb) which demonstrates the overlap (not posted inline out of compassion for our dial-up users ) D'oh! This would make more sense. For some reason I was thinking "sprocket holes"... but this isn't 35mm film.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 14, 2005 15:37:53 GMT -4
Don't they look like studio lights to you?
No. They don't. And you're begging the question.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 14, 2005 15:44:32 GMT -4
This particular film did have sprocket holes because it was the thinnest possible Estar base. That made film tearing or stretching a possibility with the normal longroll drive. The longroll drive as originally supplied does not require sprocket holes; there is only the take-up spool and the backing. The 70mm Estar film base has sprocket holes on one side only; the film is wound vertically, not horizontally as in 35mm cartridges.
Since the photo in question is the first exposure on the roll, it makes sense to label it with the ID number so that someone making prints from the dupe master can have a basis from which to count frames, identify the roll, etc. This is especially important for the lesser-requested traverse and geological documentation rolls.
It's a black-and-white photo, so the writing would be done on the negative in a black pen, which would then expose as white marks in the print or scan. There is a 2cm margin between successive frames. Because the sky is black (i.e., clear on the negative) and the margin is also clear, it would be difficult to tell where the sky stopped and the margin began. Here the writing has intruded into the frame. Or more likely, the scan has included a bit of the margin. These quick scans from the dupe masters often include margin.
The practice of handwriting ID numbers directly on the negatives or transparencies is evidenced on other rolls with much clearer examples.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2005 5:29:38 GMT -4
|
|