Voting

[Illuminatus]

If NASA was ordered to make a movie about fake landing on the Moon don't you think that all those brilliant minds would not make a movie with such "mistakes"?
I think you don't really believe this nonsense and you are just pulling our leg.

[binTravkin]

I think you don't really believe this nonsense and you are just pulling our leg.

Well if someone provides real proof, I will believe, but as long as I dont - my best argument for your post is that If Im to choose who's smarter - nature or NASA, I would choose the 1st one..

[Chaos Theory]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

[GeoModder]

Regarding the shadows the astronauts lay on the surface. Are you telling us that those came from the same landing?

Unlikely for on the second one a wheel can be seen, and the first landing didn't had a moonrover with it.

So those two pictures could be from two entirely different missions, hence the difference in shade length.

[fender]

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.

[Chaos Theory]

Then why are we using CCDs in so many high-grade products such as telescopes?

I'm quite willing to believe astronauts still use film-based photography, as there's really no need for anything else on a space shuttle. Regarding film photography in general, though, perhaps I'm too strongly associating motion picture quality from the 1960s with still picture quality.

[fender]

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.

[fender]

This is interesting article about digital vs film if anyone is really interested. It's not a long read either.

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803

[girlfight_club]

The role of binTravkin this evening is played by David Duchovny

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.

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.

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.

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]

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...

[fender]

Now this is interesting, and something I just heard about. If any of you listen to Coast to Coast radio, you know they are famous for airing the unusual. Well, it turns out the they are doing a program about the moon landing fact or fiction. Thursday night Feb 03. After reading this post I know I plan to listen.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/02/03.html

[Chaos Theory]

From the site of Nexus magazine, the magazine of the guest on the Coast to Coast radio show, comes this article:

By Dr Valery Uvarov. Evidence and testimony suggest that intelligently guided plasma spheres using a compensatory explosive force technology destroyed the 1908 Tunguska meteorite in flight.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[binTravkin]

Whether it was directed from inside or outside the US, that you can debate.

I do not debate this. I believe it was from inside - it's just too obvious - all your hi-tech crap failed when someone hijacked a plane..

Don't be funny. That means I can hijack a plane and hit Pentagon too..
Nice perspective - the worlds most powerful nation can be struck by a few guys hijacking a plane.

Than what can I expect from Latvian Defense Forces?

They met fresh troops, ordinary Americans, across the no-man's lands, and after a lot of killing, the Germans were the more exhausted.

Do you all think like that???

I know "arguing over internet is like running in Olympics for the retarded", but this is not funny anymore.

I've read a **** like this sentence a thousand times, so I dont wonder why you vote for Bush..

"no-man's lands" haha! What do you know!
Go read some NON-american history buddy!

[binTravkin]

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Yeah this one is funny!

But I also dont believe the official opinion that the object simply vanished only carrying the wave to Earth.
It was too big to burn in atmosphere, I think (giving the radius of that waves damage).

[Chaos Theory]

I don't know much about the Tunguska meteorite, but the article reads like something from the Onion. It's great for a laugh, but I think it's meant to be serious, which is sad.