|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 20, 2005 19:03:55 GMT -4
Here is a link to the uncropped, first-generation scan at the Project Apollo Image Gallery. The smoothed dust from the engine exhaust is very clear. An irrelevant question here, but is there a decent blow up of the visor so we can see the reflection of the lander and Neil? Here is a 1.2 meg scan from the original. You've gotta love the resolution on 70mm film!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 19:25:42 GMT -4
The version on Clavius comes from Markus Mehring's rectification of the previously highest resolution scan. It's nice to see the new scans have been rectified too.
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 20, 2005 19:30:48 GMT -4
margamatix;You`re interpretation as to what has been taking place in your threads is as invalid and ill argued as the unsupported and laughable hoax theories you believe in.You`ve not argued a single point but repeated opinions in a childlike manner.You may have removed you last signature but you`re plainly still in dreamland. ;D But do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from making an ad hominem attack? I don`t need to say very much at all and have expressed a valid and coherent observation relating to your own evasion and conduct in these threads,which clearly speaks for itself (as opposed to your argument or,to be more precise,lack of one ;D). With regard to the comments and detailed replies given in these threads,I,as I have stated previously,am a layman in these fields,and am content to ponder the evidence that is offered by those who do have a great and detailed knowledge of such,and see for myself the valid and supported reasons for stating, as fact,that the Apollo moon landings actually did take place,which is something you clearly either do not do or do not have the capacity to do. edited to add However,with regard to this particular thread I have the following to offer;You`ve obviously taken your own photographs throughout your life.Use your own experience and logically analyse (don`t anal-ise) the reasons as to why a picture may throw up something to appear a certain way.It`s already been stated to you that the photograph has been cropped, therefore does not show the whole picture,and is not taken from a first generation print,(to give just one example).I can`t offer you the technical jargon like some (most) of the posters in these threads (I don`t need technical jargon in order to decipher the truth) but that my friend,(this is an expression by the way) does not mean that I am incapable of evaluating things for myself and blindly sucking up everything that is offered by liars,fraudsters and conmen.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 20, 2005 21:37:34 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 20, 2005 22:27:34 GMT -4
The High Res Image is not that hard to find, I doubt that margamatix even bothered looking for it. I recall that when he first arrived, margamatix claimed to have looked at both sides, a claim that was quickly proven false. He has been repeatedly refered to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal but as of yet he doesn't seem to have bothered taking up the offer. margamatix, I strongly suggest that instead of going to all your Pro-Hoax sites and just copy and pasting their arguments, you go and read through, and look at the images and film clips in the ALSJ (and the Flight Journal.) Since they are taken from primary sources they are a far better record than you'll ever see from any Pro-Hoax site. Add to this the Apollo Project Archives which contains even more information and diagrams and film clips and the Apollo Image Atlas which contains every singleApollo Image. If you spend the time there instead of at your Pro-hoax sites, firstly you'll get better information, secondly you will be presented with just the pure informtion, without any spin on it. You will be able to determine what it right and wrong yourself. If you do this, and put the effort in, and you still see things you don't understand in the records these two sites present, then come and ask about them. Heck even if you take an argument from a Pro-Hoax site, at least go and check out the image or clip on the ALSJ site and compare it to the one the Pro-Hoax site gave you, then come and ask about it. Currently you are just seeming to follow the Pro-Hoax sites totally unthinkingly and totally blindly without even bothering to do anything yourself. I'm sure you are better than that and it's a real shame to see you just swallowing their line without even bothering to do any research on your own before posting here.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 20, 2005 22:52:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Aug 21, 2005 0:25:56 GMT -4
I fear that the rich and detailed history leading up to the moon landings is beyond many HBs.
Edited for stupid spelling mistakes
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 21, 2005 2:31:36 GMT -4
I fear that the rich and detailed history leading up to the moon landings is beyond many HBs. Edited for stupid spelling mistakes Not really beyond, it's just they don't bother going and reading up on it. If they were as willing to go and read the stuff, which is all publically availible and totally free to any that want it, rather then wallowing about on the pro-hoax sites, they'd pretty quickly see that the Hoax Proponents really have no idea what they are talking about. Take the claims of 10 years being too short a time. (Actually it ws only 8 from the time Kennedy did his speech.) NASA and its associated groups already believed that they could get to the moon by 1970 in 1959. All Kennedy did was publically voice it and get the country behind the effort that NASA had been planning for over 3 years eariler. Von Braun was already working on the Saturn class rockets in 1958 while he was still with the DoD because he had been wanting to get to outer space and the moon since 1944 if not before. These sort of things are easy to find, if you are willing to actually spend a minute to look for them, but it seems that a lot of HBs simply don't want to know all this sort of thing and so actively avoid it as if it'll contaminate them somehow if they read it. They'd rather have the minced up mush their Hoax Proponent Authors spoonfeed them.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 21, 2005 3:23:27 GMT -4
Take the claims of 10 years being too short a time. (Actually it ws only 8 from the time Kennedy did his speech.)... People really don't seem to remember what this country is capable of. For example, from Pearl Harbor to when Hirohito threw in the sponge was 44 months and a week (by comparison, it has been 47 months and 2 weeks since 9/11). In that time, the US built dozens of aircraft carriers, hundreds of other warships, thousands of transports and over a hundred thousand aircraft. We conceived, designed, built, tested and mass-produced over a thousand of the worlds first pressurised high-altitude long-range bombers. The Manhattan Project built whole cities of industrial and research facilities. We built factories to produce industrial quantities of a metal who's atomic element we hadn't even discovered before 1941. All in under four years. In aviation, we went from biplanes to supersonic jets in under 15 years. In 1957 we were shocked by the Soviets development of the ICBM. 5 years later, at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets had deployed 36 ICBMs, but the US had nearly 200 (of three different types). The Apollo Project was not some weird stunt from out of the blue; it was just another (more positive)manifestation of the magnificent drive, ambition and enthusiasm that America once posessed. Many of the same people who accomplished these other marvels worked on Apollo. Not only were they confident that they could conquer this challenge, they would have been flat-out appalled at anyone suggesting that they should just "fake-it" instead.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 21, 2005 3:37:50 GMT -4
mass-produced over a thousand of the worlds first pressurised high-altitude long-range bombers.
One of the things that amazed me when I was at the Strategic Air and Space Museum was the figures thay had on the factory production of the Omaha Bomber factory. They were quite literially pushing them out the door at one a day.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 21, 2005 5:10:20 GMT -4
Just as an odd exercise, I looked at the clean scan of as11-40-5903HR and tried to imagine it as light from a single artificial source falling on an untextured surface.
I do not have any experience in photoanalysis, and although I have been exposed to what lighting professionals call photometrics, I rarely calculate them explicitly. What I have is almost thirty years of seeing how light falls from the wide range of theatrical sources on to painted scenery on wood and canvas. Gentlemen, I can not reconcile what I see in as11-40-5903HR with that experience.
The only way I could reproduce the pattern of illumination; the even soft fade-off in all directions and the small but irregular "hotstpot" behind Aldrin, would be with a large fresnel fixture hung directly above the scene. That is the only source my instinct will accept. The slanting, low-angle shadow (and the severe cut-off downstage of Aldrin) so blatantly disagrees with this idea that it is almost painful to look at it that way.
The only way to reconcile the scene is to allow that the deeply-textured surface influences the apparent illumination.
Oh, and there is a subtle but interesting point. As I light for the stage I find myself alternately making use of or cursing bounce light. To my eye Aldrin is too well lit for the apparent brightness of the ground around him. Until one realizes that, again, due to the texture effect the ground is BRIGHTER to Aldrin; it presents more illuminated surfaces to him then it does to us. With that in mind the entire scene at last "clicks." It meets my perception of what sunlight and rock should do. It does not, either on first glance or on last, strike this experienced lighting designer as being the result of artificial lights.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 21, 2005 5:29:45 GMT -4
Nice first post nomuse and welcome.
It's also good to remember that there is also light coming from two other reflective sources too. One is Armstrong's own suit, the other is of course the LM which causes a slightly golden tinge to the upper shadows on Buzz's shoulders from the aluminized Mylar covering.
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Aug 21, 2005 14:01:16 GMT -4
Welcome! Few people outside of those who light for a living uinderstand the power of bounced light. Most cannot imagine that reflected light plays such a large role, even though they see it in everyday life. I often point to this image that I made a few years back to illustrate the power of reflected light. www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595310The Aldrin image shows may clues that all point to reflected light from the surface in the shadow side of his body. The creases of the suit show a highlight and shadow that is consistant with light from below. The glove on his right had shows a rimlight like highlight on the left edge from the light reflected from the surface. The toe of his right boot is not being lit because it is in his shadow while the left toe does because it recieves reflected light from the surface. And if you look at the silver snaps on his left leg you can clearly see a highlight that could only be created by a large and diffuse light source from below...the lunar surface. I've been lighting still photography sets for 25 years in the studio and I would be hard pressed to recreate this scene with more than one light.....and I'm a bit short of the space and the proper sized fixture to do it with single source
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 21, 2005 16:30:32 GMT -4
Yup. You look at the rim effect of the key light and it is obvious the direction it comes from. You observe how the top of the pack and helmet are darker, and the crotch and the underside of the raised arm are brighter, and it is obvious much of the fill light is coming from below. No-one with experience in lighting for the stage, for film, for still photography, or even club lighting could fail to see these distinct patterns. The amber tinting from the LM (particularly strong for me on his right arm) is an added goodie.
I've been browing the album you linked. I have a feeling your friends have had to put up with the same thing mine have; those moments at a restaurant or window shopping downtown when I suddenly ask them to freeze, and I peer around locating the sources that had caused that particular play of light across their features.
By the by...it's something I don't dare to mention around HB's, but I find lighting in 3d informative. The approximations and algorithms of the 3d world are concrete; light will only fall in a scene when you make it fall in a scene. If your render engine doesn't include one of the radiosity family of functions, then there is no bounce light. Which gave me endless trouble, in fact, until I switched to a better render engine!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 21, 2005 17:51:40 GMT -4
In simpler rendering engines, the effect of diffuse interreflection is simply fudged by an "ambient" term. Radiosity is the heat-transfer approach to diffuse interreflection; the same mathematics that are used to converge to thermal equilibrium in a radiative heat transfer problem are used to converge to a visible-light equilibrium. This approach, while computationally expensive, is adept at transmitting color information between interreflecting elements. I agree: there is no point to modeling stage or studio lighting without radiosity.
Recently we completed a very brightly colored underpainting for the stage at our theater. Before the final dull glaze was put on, the actors and lighting techs were out on it rehearsing. The brightly colored spill from the floor reacted quite hilariously with the white costumes and even their faces.
|
|