|
Post by turbonium on Aug 19, 2005 2:13:29 GMT -4
I started this thread at the request of someone who wishes clarification on the below images. I know there are photo aficionados here so I would appreciate any replies. It is from this link www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm a site debunking Jack White. The left image shows a large lem and in the background is an expanse of a mountain. The right image shows a small lem and a background of the same mountain but which is much larger and only a portion is within the image. I assume that the camera position is close to the lem in the left photo, while being further away in the right photo. Is this correct? And, how does the left photo result in a large lem and a distant background, while the right photo has a small lem and close up background?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 19, 2005 2:27:57 GMT -4
You're in luck... the owner of that site is Bob B., a member of this forum. I assume you read the explanation on the site?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 19, 2005 2:39:59 GMT -4
You're in luck... the owner of that site is Bob B., a member of this forum. I assume you read the explanation on the site? D'oh! No, I missed it, as I started this thread from a request, without looking for info already supplied. I had assumed it wasn't already discussed in detail, hence my new thread. Sorry about that - I'll look at the site - thx
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 19, 2005 2:48:23 GMT -4
OK - it's explained that the left photo is taken from around 21m away from the lem, and the right photo is from around 147m away, which is then said explains the smaller apparent size of the lem. That of course makes sense. But, I think my requestor was wondering why the background in the left photo is in the far distance compared to the right photo which looks like the background mountain is much closer in distance. I can't find that explained on the site, but it's late and maybe I'm overlooking it.....
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 19, 2005 2:54:11 GMT -4
OK - it's explained that the left photo is taken from around 21m away from the lem, and the right photo is from around 147m away, which is then said explains the smaller apparent size of the lem. That of course makes sense. But, I think my requestor was wondering why the background in the left photo is in the far distance compared to the right photo which looks like the background mountain is much closer in distance. I can't find that explained on the site, but it's late and maybe I'm overlooking it..... Have you considered that one might have been taken with a wider angle lens than the other? The other option is that they have been cropped differently. Anyone with a camera and a zoom lens can take similar pairs of pictures of their own neighbourhood.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 19, 2005 3:00:27 GMT -4
I assume that the camera position is close to the lem in the left photo, while being further away in the right photo. Is this correct? And, how does the left photo result in a large lem and a distant background, while the right photo has a small lem and close up background? Jay has quite a good thread on this too either here or on BA. It's basically a case of near objects getting smaller while distant ones stay the same size all due to parallax. The hill, which is really a very tall mountain about 12 km away, appears to stay roughly the same size as the astronuats head futher away due to its massive size and proportionally smaller distance, while obviously the LM appears to get smaller because of its smaller size and the greater proportional increase in distance to it. You can do this on Earth pretty easily. Park your car about 20 km from a big hill or mountain. Now walk backwards away from your car and see how it gets smaller while the mountain appears to stay roughly the same size. The second part to these photos is optical illusion based on the actual sizes of the images. The image on the right has the crosshairs closer togther which means that the print of the image is smaller than the one on the left. Obviously is the image on the right is bigger overall then the mountain in it is also going to be bigger. If you take the photo on the left and expand it up so that the crosshairs are the same distance appart as in the photo on the right, funnily enough, the mountain becomes the same size too. This is a normal trick for Jack. He simply crops away all the information that would show you the two aren't to the same scale and hopes that you won't go looking for the actual pictures, so you'll never learn that his images have two entirely different scales. Not exactly what one would call honest is it?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 19, 2005 3:32:49 GMT -4
The second part to these photos is optical illusion based on the actual sizes of the images. The image on the right has the crosshairs closer togther which means that the print of the image is smaller than the one on the left. Obviously is the image on the right is bigger overall then the mountain in it is also going to be bigger. If you take the photo on the left and expand it up so that the crosshairs are the same distance appart as in the photo on the right, funnily enough, the mountain becomes the same size too. So the cropping explanation is the correct one, at first look I hadn't noticed the closer cross hairs in the left image, which is why I suggested the telephoto lens.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 19, 2005 3:39:17 GMT -4
The second part to these photos is optical illusion based on the actual sizes of the images. The image on the right has the crosshairs closer togther which means that the print of the image is smaller than the one on the left. Obviously is the image on the right is bigger overall then the mountain in it is also going to be bigger. If you take the photo on the left and expand it up so that the crosshairs are the same distance appart as in the photo on the right, funnily enough, the mountain becomes the same size too. So the cropping explanation is the correct one, at first look I hadn't noticed the closer cross hairs in the left image, which is why I suggested the telephoto lens. To the best of my knowledge, the Apollo cameras didn't have such a zoom function. If you look to the cross hairs you'll see that the ones in the lefthand photo are about half the size of the ones in the left, just as the mountain is about half the height. It's typical Jack White style, hide the evidence and bluster enough that no-one goes to actually look for themselves..
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 19, 2005 3:43:35 GMT -4
By the way, Jay deals with this exact image trickery from Jack hereand this is a link to his Fun with Parallax thread.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 19, 2005 4:07:14 GMT -4
yep, one of the first things you have to do when looking at these images is try to reproduce them yourself.
That is especially true when Jack White says "it is impossible to....".
Refer to the ALSJ and find out the location / distance of the objects concerned. Then try to set up a similar scene yourself and watch the results.
I wouldn't call Jack a liar, but his claims about photography often don't stand up to independent verification.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 19, 2005 4:19:33 GMT -4
I wouldn't call Jack a liar You have more restraint that I do. When you look at what he deliberately edits out of his images to make his claims, if he isn't a lair and a fraud, then he's the thickest moron on the planet. Either way, his credibility about expertise in anlysing photos is nothing but a joke.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 19, 2005 4:21:09 GMT -4
To the best of my knowledge, the Apollo cameras didn't have such a zoom function. Sorry for the confusion, the zoom reference was to making your own "fakes" at home. The Apollo cameras, at least on the later missions, did have an interchangeable telephoto lens for details of inaccessible places like the mountains or, in the case of Apollo 15, the far side of the rille.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 19, 2005 5:23:51 GMT -4
And this, of course, serves to undermine the "the background is just a backdrop" argument. If that were the case then the size of the mountain would reduce at much the same rate as you walked away from the LM since it would not be much further away.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 19, 2005 6:25:11 GMT -4
I'm not an expert on this, but I think there's another factor contributing to the illusion, in addition to the ones mentioned above. Because the LM seems to be oriented roughly the same way in both pictures relative to the camera, this creates an expectation that both pictures were taken along roughly the same line of site (apologies if that's not the right technical term). But on closer inspection that doesn't actually seem to be the case. In the picture on the left, the camera seems to be positioned relatively low down, pointing slightly up towards the LM, making the LM seem to loom high above the landing site and level with the top of the mountain. In the picture on the right, the camera seems to be positioned higher up, helping the LM to appear to sit lower in the landscape. You can see this clearly if you compare the relative positions of the LM and the distinctive boulder with a sharp peak and a shoulder, away to the right of the LM. In the picture on the left, this rock is just inside the right margin of the picture, and is on a level with the gold foil area on the lower half of the LM. In the picture on the right, this rock is now much higher up, almost level with the white area on the top of the LM. This suggests that not only is the camera much further away in the second shot, it's also higher up. Maybe only a couple of feet or so, but it changes the relative positions of all the subjects significantly. Furthermore, I'm not sure about this, but it looks as if the camera was moved around to the left between the shots. In the left picture, there's what looks like a large rock above the rear wheel of the rover. In the right picture, there's a large rock below the mid-point between the two crosshairs. IF these are both the same rock (and they MIGHT not be the same rock) then it's clear that the camera WAS moved round to the left. Even if they're not the same rock, a close inspection of the LM suggests that the camera was moved to the left.
So, in conclusion, there's an expectation that both pictures were taken along roughly the same line of sight, which leads to expectations about the relative size and position of the subjects. But close inspection suggests that the line of sight was significantly different.
This, combined with the change in distance from the LM, and the fraudulent enlargement, create the "anomalies" whereas in fact there is no anomaly.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 19, 2005 8:48:42 GMT -4
It seems I came a little late to this discussion. The Web page referenced in the opening post is mine, but it looks like you guys have already done a good job of explaining the photographs. Also take a look at this thread about halfway down the page. Using Jay's photos I help to show how one can crop and enlarge photos to manufacture these types of "anomalies". BTW, I tend to agree with PhantomWolf. If Jack White isn't a liar, cheat, fraud, and conman, then he's one of the biggest idiots I've ever encountered.
|
|