|
Post by spongebob on Nov 24, 2006 15:57:31 GMT -4
If they had a color video camera, why didn't they take any color video footage on the moon?
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 24, 2006 16:09:37 GMT -4
If they had a color video camera, why didn't they take any color video footage on the moon? Sorry, but this statement makes no sense...
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Nov 24, 2006 16:19:46 GMT -4
If they had a color video camera while they were travelling to the moon, then when they arrived at the moon, why didn't they take the video camera outside onto the surface of the moon and shoot some nice color footage?
I hope I have explained it a bit clearer now but if you still don't understand I will try again, just let me know.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 24, 2006 16:35:48 GMT -4
Well one reason was that on Apollo 11 they didn't have an aerial with the bandwidth capacity to send a colour signal from the Lunar surface: that was why Apollo 12 took one along to set up outside beside the LM...
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 24, 2006 16:43:25 GMT -4
If they had a color video camera while they were travelling to the moon, then when they arrived at the moon, why didn't they take the video camera outside onto the surface of the moon and shoot some nice color footage? I hope I have explained it a bit clearer now but if you still don't understand I will try again, just let me know. Who? Try to be a little more explicit- Apollo 10 onwards had the camera, but as Al explains, the LM bandwidth was insufficient on A11 to use it on the Moon. The words made perfect sense, but the context missed the bus.
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Nov 24, 2006 16:46:35 GMT -4
Why then did they not take video footage recorded onto ferrous oxide tape and simply bring it back with them?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 24, 2006 17:26:07 GMT -4
Why then did they not take video footage recorded onto ferrous oxide tape and simply bring it back with them? Because they considered the transmitted version to be of sufficient quality and the mass and volume for tapes could be better used for other stuff presumably.
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Nov 24, 2006 18:04:40 GMT -4
Because they considered the transmitted version to be of sufficient quality. You're being serious, right? and the mass and volume for tapes could be better used for other stuff presumably. A car, hundreds of kilogrammes of rocks but not a few reels of videotape?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 24, 2006 18:30:41 GMT -4
Because they considered the transmitted version to be of sufficient quality. You're being serious, right? Yes, just because you expect them to produce super duper quality video doesn't mean that they considered it to be a sufficient priority to go through the cost and difficulty of doing so. The fact that the later missions were able to send colour video from the Lunar surface supports the presumption that they considered it to be of low importance for the first landing. The rover was only taken along on the later missions which did have colour video capability and the rocks are literally priceless in terms of their contribution to science. Colour videos on the other hand would be nothing more than "Oooh pretty" and probably of much less interest to the public than the actual live footage from the Moon. Plus what you consider to be important is irrelevant, we are looking back on this with 37 years of hindsight and expectations based on the huge technological developments in that period. Colour TV was still not widely adopted at the time of Apollo and camcorders (ie combining both a video camera and recorder in a single unit) weren't produced until 1982.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Nov 24, 2006 18:39:48 GMT -4
As I understand it, it wasn't a video camera, it was a television camera. So there wasn't even a tape recorder built-in - the footage had to be cabled to the transmitter at once. As for Apollo 11-12, these were early missions, so no car or even anything above the bare minimum. The rover wasn't brought along until Apollo 15.
In fact, there were two television cameras brought along with Apollo 11 - one colour camera which was used for the televised broadcast from transit and remained with the command module in orbit, and one detachable B/W camera that was mounted on the side of the descent stage in the MESA assembly. There was no point in bringing the colour camera down for A11, as the footage could neither be broadcast nor taped.
(feel free to correct me on any details)
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 24, 2006 18:52:46 GMT -4
Why then did they not take video footage recorded onto ferrous oxide tape and simply bring it back with them? have you seen the size of the video tape equipment available in the 60s and 70s? The Saturn V would have a job shifting one of those on it's own! ;D Edit:- see here! www.rewindmuseum.com/colourreeltoreelvideo.htmThere is a B&W 'portable' on an earlier page - but that didn't come out until 1970, and it's a monster too...
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 25, 2006 13:30:10 GMT -4
The video camera used on Apollo 11 lunar EVA was a 10 frames per second single tube B&W camera custom built by Westinghouse for the mission. The signal was linked via cable to the transmitter and picked up by Honeysuckle Creek, Parkes, and Goldstone. www.honeysucklecreek.net has extensive information on how the signal was received and sent on to Houston. A colour wheel TV camera was tested and considered for use, with the prime reason for its use being as a backup to the colour hassleblad images. An on board recorder was to bulky. The 1969 alternative was the 16mm DAC camera which yielded better images that TV could ever hope to. A car, hundreds of kilogrammes of rocks but not a few reels of videotape?Nope but as pointed out above, nice reels of 16mm colour film. With greater resdolution and contrast ratio than 1969 TV could ever have. Considering black and white TV was still the norm in alot of people's homes around the world, transmitting a black and white image from the moon was not as bizarre as you think. Umatic didn't arrive until 1971 in its lowband incarnation (1976 for the high band variety). The other pro end format was 2" and given the size of that plus the limitation of 60 minutes per reel, it was too combersome to take along, and surely you must agree that 16mm is a perfect format for shooting colour. edited for date change for umatic
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 25, 2006 23:01:39 GMT -4
If they had a color video camera while they were travelling to the moon, then when they arrived at the moon, why didn't they take the video camera outside onto the surface of the moon and shoot some nice color footage? Have you read JayUtah's excellent Clavius page about Apollo 11's TV quality? www.clavius.org/tvqual.htmlIt has already been pointed out that the cameras were not video cameras recording onto tape, but TV cameras which required their pictures to be transmitted immediately to Earth. Also, that they did shoot nice 16mm colour movie footage and brought that back to Earth. Have you viewed any of it? Some people have raised the same question in regard to Neil Armstrong's first step onto the moon, without thinking that first a large transmitting antenna had to be set up on the lunar surface to send the colour TV pictures back to Earth, so how could they possibly set up the antenna then film that "first step"? Put simply, with the technology of 1969 the first step could not be taken, filmed in colour and transmitted live to Earth, so they did the best they could with what they had. Also it is worth keeping in mind the main objective of Apollo 11 -- to land men on the moon and return them safely to Earth. Nothing else. However, if at all possible they intended to do some science while there, and pretty TV pictures and tourist photos were a long way down the list. Those things came on later missions.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 26, 2006 4:24:45 GMT -4
One thing bothers me why did they film the Earth from a position away from the window ( as in the footage in BS's film)? If you want to take a picture of a distant object through a small window then it's easier to keep it in frame if you're closer to the window. If you watch the real video, Mission Control actually comments on seeing them pull the camare back from the window. But Bart wouldn't want you hearing that. Just watching it makes it so obvious though, as the cabin light comes into view, and someone clearly moves in front of the window. Then the lights come up, and it's clear that he is across the cabin from the window. There is someone (or something) blocking the view of Earth - before the camera is zoomed back out. The transmission begins at 18:40 of the video, showing Earth as below.... From 19:25 to 20:33, the Earth is zoomed in as this sequence shows...... From 21:02 to 21:05, someone (or something) inside the CM blocks the view of Earth.... Finally, from 30:20 to 30:32, the camera zooms back out...... The four frames below show... 1. Earth before the camera zooms in. 2. Earth after the camera zooms in. 3. The interior object partially blocking the view of "zoomed-in" Earth. 4. Earth after the camera has zoomed back out. The camera was purported to have been placed right up to the CM window, with everything being filmed outside of the CM. That is, Earth as seen from 130,000 miles out, surrounded by the blackness of space. This is impossible, of course. We clearly see the Earth being partially blocked from view due to an interior object. That the camera is not placed up to the window is further confirmed soon after this, as the camera wildly pans and jumps about, even to the point where the Earth goes completely out of view - and back into view -several times. The fun begins at about 26:20 in the video, with a few seconds of it captured below..... - If the camera had truly been held right up to the window, or even held a few inches away from the window, it would be impossible to move the camera around this radically completely within the small window frame.
-If the camera had truly been held right up to the window, or even held a few inches away from the window, it would be impossible for an object to come between the camera and the window, freely move about [bat a distance from the camera[/b], and partially block out the view of Earth. The claim that the camera was placed close up to the window during this time is conclusively false. [/color][/size]
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 26, 2006 5:03:33 GMT -4
Did something come between camera and WINDOW, or camera and EARTH. I see only the latter demonstrated. Also, how much space would be required to cause the shifts seen? These are not shifts of lateral position; these are probably shifts of orientation. Since the Earth subtends, what, 1/2 a degree, at what zoom would the camera be to bring it to almost a quarter of the field of view? And how much of an orientation change would be needed to cause the Earth to fly across the screen? I can't tell you without calculating it...but I can tell you I could never keep my little 2.5" telescope pointed at anything without a tripod.
I do not feel you have adequately investigated the various possible explanations here.
|
|