 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Chaos Theory
|
 |
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002
time: 04:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by fender
I'm not really posting about the moon controversy, just about the camera. As a photographer I have to point out that Hasselblad cameras are the gold standard in the industry. The ones you can buy today are basically the same thing you got then.
It's also worth mentioning that the film used then and the present day film is really no different. |
Maybe our film is no different, but we have top-notch digital cameras now, based on CCDs, which are much better than film. Though I don't know details about the photographic world, modern telescopes use CCDs to record their images whereas they used to use film, so we must have improved the state of the art in photography.
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
See this pic - see the difference between the object (module) and background.
Do you see any signs of light coming from it.
Their cameras weren't so good to capture a reflecting object but not capture the background light.
|
Though I'm not clear exactly what you're saying, a camera could very easily capture reflected sunlight while not capturing faint starlight.
quote:
Yes but gravity clearly makes up the amount of acceleration towards ground.
See the acceleration and make up a small simulator.
I have no link to the movie, but it's quite suspicious if they accelerate maybe 2 ir 3 times slower than on Earth..
|
You mean that they look as if they're only falling at 1/2 to 1/3 the rate that people fall on Earth? Have you timed this or are you just guessing? Let's do a little math:
Time to fall 1 meter in Earth's gravity (~10 m/s^2), from rest
d = .5 * a * t^2
1 = .5 * 10 * t^2
.2 = t^2
t = .447
Time to fall 1 meter in the Moon's gravity (~1.67 m/s^2), from rest
d = .5 * a * t^2
1 = .5 * 1.67 * t^2
1.2 = t^2
t = 1.095
So with 1/6 the gravity, it only takes 2-3 times as long to fall from a given height. Is this what you're observing?
quote:
It is relatively reflective, but it's not made up from silver or aluminium or other shiny metal.
Given the amount of light which is "reflected", there should be no shadows at all - all the black area around the astronaut in attached picture should then be at least gray.
Otherwise it's strange why "reflecting" light can't be seen on such part of module as satellite antena for example and other seemingly "black" parts of module.
|
Perhaps there were no elevated, illuminated surfaces nearby. Flat ground doesn't reflect onto flat ground, but it would reflect onto elevated objects, such as astronauts, which is why he's visible but the ground is dark. I can't make out what the light and dark areas on the module are. Perhaps some parts were shadowed relative to most of the lunar surface.
As far as the gradient on the astronaut, the largest factor would be the angle of the surface on the astronaut relative to the angle of the illuminating surface (the lunar ground). All visible surfaces are approximately perpendicular to the lunar ground and so are substantially illuminated. Since the lunar ground scatters light rather than reflecting it as a mirror, the elevation of the reflecting surface does not substantially influence the amount of light reflected there.
In your high quality picture, clearly the sun is low on the horizon, and so the lunar surface does not have much light to reflect. That light is probably all that is illuminating the astronaut's back, though.
quote:
I was trying to say that only thing affecting the flag is gravity.
It is logical that it would lie down in a matter of few seconds, not stand or wave.
Rigidity is one thing but if acceleration toward surface is ~1.65 m/s^s, then it means flag will fall in not less than 3 seconds giving it's lenght (< 1.5m)
3 seconds are not enough to make such a nice picture as I will be adding in my next post.
|
Ah, now I understand what you were trying to say. You think the flag should settle down and be fairly flat in a matter of a few seconds. Well, the moon is airless, and air resistance greatly influences the way cloth moves on the earth. Without air, cloth would behave more like a pendulum, and would take quite a while to stop moving.
quote:
And look once more to previous picture - its qualitative enough to see the stars, but there are none.
Starlight without atmosphere is multiplied by the same amount that of sunlight.
Not the raw light matters.
Ratio matters.
See physics book if dont believe.
|
Even that much brighter, stars are still very dim. Furthermore, their apparent size is much smaller than most cameras' resolution, so they'd be even harder to see. Nevertheless, I think I do see one faint star in your high-quality picture, near the top and in the center.
Thank you for explaining to me these arguments, as I will be better prepared when others claim the same in the future. This is very disturbing coming from our Lord of Progress 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fender
|
 |
Welland
Apr 2004
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Maybe our film is no different, but we have top-notch digital cameras now, based on CCDs, which are much better than film. Though I don't know details about the photographic world, modern telescopes use CCDs to record their images whereas they used to use film, so we must have improved the state of the art in photography |
I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. What you think about the moon landing yes or no, I don't really care. No one can prove it either way. What I do care about is what I know, and that's cameras and photography.
Today's digital cameras are getting much better, I have a Nikon digital myself and I love it, but they are NOT yet up to the quality of a top of the line 35mm SLR film camera let alone the Hasselblad 6x6cm format.
Yes, an inexpensive digital is far better than an inexpensive 35 mm camera, it does not work both ways.
A top end Nikon, Leica, or Hasselblad film format camera still can't not be beat by the very best digital. I'm sure that day will come, but it's a few years away at best.
Remember, I'm not here to debate about the moon. Just photography.
FYI: Shuttle Astronauts are still using Hasselblad film format cameras.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fender
|
|
Welland
Apr 2004
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Then why are we using CCDs in so many high-grade products such as telescopes? |
While I can't say for sure, I would say that it's because of the space needed at present, and I stress, at present, to gather enough information and cramp it into a fairly small camera body.
Size is not an issue in a telescope. I'm sure the CCD's are far bigger than what you could at present put in a consumer type camera. However, I don't really know as this is not my area of expertise.
Consider this equation on image quality.
Information theory and image quality
The electronic communications industry has its roots in Claude Shannon's pioneering work on information theory. His classic equation for the information transmission capacity C of a data channel is,
C = W log2(SNR+1)
W is the bandwidth of the channel, which corresponds to the 50% MTF frequency f50-- the perceived image sharpness. ( f50 is the -3 dB frequency because light intensity is measured as power.)
SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio (a dimensionless fraction).
The sharpness of a photographic imaging system or of a component of the system (lens, film, scanner, enlarging lens, etc.) is characterized by a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), also known as spatial frequency response.
If MTF alone determined image quality it would take 12 megapixels (36 megapixels after interpolation) for a digital camera to outperform 35mm.
I'm the first to admit I don't know math, but I know photography.
I am sure beyond any doubt that digital will surpass film cameras by a wide margin in just a few years. But not yet.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
girlfight_club
|
 |
on an alternate Chiron
Feb 2004
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
It's not very smart to believe someone actually attacked US.
|
No, it's not very smart to say that, because there was an attack. Nearly lost some of my people in it.
Whether it was directed from inside or outside the US, that you can debate.
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Remember that US has the best film industry and that mission to moon was one of their movies whom almost everyone believes.
|
Do you believe in space shuttles, binTravkin? How about satellites? Cell phone relays? Want to flip a coin as to whether the telemetry from Mars probes are fakes? Or only the American probes?
The moonshots were technically feasible, and affordable, at the time. Though I suppose you won't 'believe in them' till some Japanese entrepreneur builds a sushi bar next to one of the landers.
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
I dont know much about astronomy, but at the first glance I can see none of those pictures/videos have been sent from the moon.
|
Because, of course, you've been there.
Could you go back and check for us? We'd appreciate that.
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Intelligent people laugh at all that.
Just the other day I was laughing with 1 of my friends upon hearing about US 'great' effort in WWI..
|
Lenin made peace with Germany at about the time the US entered the conflict. Those German troops went straight for the Western front. They met fresh troops, ordinary Americans, across the no-man's lands, and after a lot of killing, the Germans were the more exhausted.
There's a Legion of Honor medal issued to an American from the French government in my home for his irreplacable efforts in securing the means to bring American troops into the war.
So laugh, little gamer. Laugh.
Don't confuse the US' dickery of the last few years with its contributions of the past. (Or its actual dickery of the past; see: the Phillippines.) It was great once, but is only now taking a turn as villain on the world stage...
GFC
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:28
|
|
First, binTravkin, you start telling me the US did crap in WW2, and now you're telling me the moon landing is fake?
What's it going to be next? Jesus is a homo, and the priory of zion exists?
Or maybe hitler was part of the green party and was in a catonic state...
First off, about the shadows on the moon, can you say "CLOUDS". Heck, even the retards in Siberia know clouds reflect light. There is no way you would see the stars with the reflection from both clouds and the lunar craft and, of course, the moon...
If the moon landing was fake, then that would mean then the Australian government would be lying about broadcasting the landing. I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that...
If the moon-landing was fake, it was all a ploy, then the USSR would know about it. And if you want to try and tell me the USSR would not take up the chance to screw the whole US, then you're worse than a drunken Irish catholic that looks like a mulatto asian mix...
You know, a third grader knows how to make a flag rigid. Ah, duh, you soak in elmer's glue. Or maybe you put a frame around it.
Oh, by the way, have you heard that Osama bin Ladin and John Kerry are cousins...
And I bet you binTravkin have heard all about the green pigs that live under the sea that are going to take over the world...
And I bet you believe there are alligators in the sewer too...
You say you base your opinions off truth and facts...
As far as I can tell, you have no evidence what-so-ever. The best, binTravikin, you could do, is prove that the Australian government transmitted a fake moon-landing to all TV viewers because it couldn't get the signal from the moon, which, by the way, doesn't actually prove no one landed on the moon...
The odds of getting a bunch of outback rancheros, a commune of soviets, and the American feds to all agree to fake a moon-landing is zero, nil, zippo.
You might as well try and tell me the Chinese government actually lets all the trashmen vote for the premier and wall-mart greeters are part of mensa...
Heck, if what you say is true, then the American feds just might be worse than the vatican...and that's saying a lot...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
 |
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Did you mean World War 2?
'Cause you wrote "WWI".
Which had "no-man's lands".
|
Historically WWI was the first war to use front lines at most battle situations. If there ever where any no-mans it was either when victory was already achieved or when some great offensive was going on.
IIRC WWI had no great offensives like Fall Gelb (IIRC this was they called capture of France) or something - there was quite slow movement of the front line (at least on the West front).
quote:
The US never rescued Latvia from Stalin, that's true, though I believe they always recognized its independence from the Soviets. ...The continental US has been unscarred by war since the 1800s. Another lucky break for them.
|
Yes it might be lucky, as you think, but because of this many US people just dont understand European viewpoint of all this.
Latvia is a small country and it's historians balance between accusing West and East (it's the quest for our reputation and survival), that's why the sources of Latvian history tend to be as neutral as they can.
Although some idiot presented a book to Putin which contained some pro-Nazi themes..
quote:
But when mobilization reaches the point where heavy industry is staffed mainly by the women, there's an effort on. |
Are you talking about WW2?
Then, yes, it's an effort. But do you recall the same about WWI?
quote:
And what makes you think I could vote for Bush? My flag is the UN... |
I didnt pretend you voted for Bush, but if someone (from US) can write something so ahistorical and nonsense as Commy, I dont wonder why US people vote for Bush..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
|
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
We all hate the aliens, right? |
I do not hate alien just because there are so many movies where they attack us.
If there where aliens who wanted to attack us somewhere around Earth, we would all be dead or slaves by now.
So the only 2 choices left are:
1.There are no aliens near us.
2.There are, but they're peaceful
So it's no reason just to hate them because you think they are.
Did they do something wrong to you?
Last edited by binTravkin on 03-02-2005 at 13:33
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-02-2005 22:55
(sorry if I misspelled the name 
|