








[To admin:] If this is the wrong place for it, please delete or move.
Image 20447hollycrap » April 19th, 2012, 6:13 pm wrote:Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see ...
The shadows in the visor and the shadows of aldrin don’t correlate, to me anyway. Another thing I’ve noticed is that you never see the astronauts face (in the moon pics) in any of the photos that I have seen. Maybe because they were somewhere else tripping on LSD and there were actors in the suits instead and/or the suits were just miniture props. I am thinking that if I was an astronaut on the moon, I would have flipped my tinted visor up for a couple of seconds so my buddy, Neil, could snap a quick pic of me in that moon suit.antipodean » September 18th, 2016, 5:21 am wrote:How about this, one of Buzz's favorites a pic that Neil took of Buzz.SmokingGunII » September 18th, 2016, 9:07 am wrote:Has anyone asked NASA if they have a photo that shows the horizon on the moon further than 100 yards away?![]()
https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/ ... 5471688704
One of the issues I found confusing with that picture is the other astronot reflected in the visor, because it can't be Neil. Buzz is quoted as saying why he likes the picture taken by Neil.Muggē » April 29th, 2018, 9:46 pm wrote:The shadows in the visor and the shadows of aldrin don’t correlate, to me anyway. Another thing I’ve noticed is that you never see the astronauts face (in the moon pics) in any of the photos that I have seen. Maybe because they were somewhere else tripping on LSD and there were actors in the suits instead and/or the suits were just miniture props. I am thinking that if I was an astronaut on the moon, I would have flipped my tinted visor up for a couple of seconds so my buddy, Neil, could snap a quick pic of me in that moon suit.antipodean » September 18th, 2016, 5:21 am wrote:How about this, one of Buzz's favorites a pic that Neil took of Buzz.SmokingGunII » September 18th, 2016, 9:07 am wrote:Has anyone asked NASA if they have a photo that shows the horizon on the moon further than 100 yards away?![]()
https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/ ... 5471688704
Whereas another "expert", Del de la Haye (Film & Video Editor/Cameraman/Photographer Rtd 1967-017) offers this "explanation" :"You don't, you see an artifact called image lag, typical of certain television pickup tubes of the era, including the Vidicon tube used in the Apollo TV Camera. This type of camera tube projects a scene onto a photoconductive target, creating a charge-density pattern which is then scanned to create the electric TV signal. The electrical charge remains present on the target until it is re-scanned or the charge dissipates. The image lag causes a characteristic smear or tail following fast-moving objects in a scene, and prolonged exposure of a bright stationary object results in a slow decaying after-image that looks like a ghost or x-ray effect."
(...)
"Fans of big band will no doubt have seen the trailing comet-tail effect following trumpets shot on video in at around the same time." []
Well, I think any logical thinker can find a far more satisfactory / no-nonsense answer just by watching this fine green-screen tutorial by Rick Osgood:"You also have to understand that video was basically in its infancy at the time, portable TV cameras were power hungry monsters and special cameras had to be designed for the Apollo missions.
The video system used for Apollo 11 was non standard , which means it was not the same as used by the networks, which in the USA was 525 line 30 frames per second,(FPS ) and in Europe ( mostly ) 625 lines and 25 FPS. The Apollo 11 camera was 320 lines and 10 FPS, which meant you couldn’t get a picture on a standard TV - unless the signal was converted. This system was used to save power and to reduce bandwidth used on the radio signal from the moon.
It was , as the other respondents have said, a vidicon type camera , which were susceptible to image stick and lag, plus blooming on highlights. But those who saw the original image at the receiving stations in the USA and Australia stated that he image was a lot better before the conversion.
The conversion process was fairly basic with an RCA broadcast camera mounted in a rack pointing at a long persistence monitor, this meant that the image basically “stuck” on the screen for a moment smoothing the motion. The broadcast camera, working at 525 lines and 30FPS , then output the image at US network standards. This conversion process was responsible for a lot of the image “transparency” problems and ghosting. ( I have not included details of the fact that the signal was put through a disc recorder also to store frames to make up the missing frames for the display ).
Details here: page 5.. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Apo...
The converted signal was then sent from the Australian receiving stations via microwave links, satellite and land lines to New York from where it was distributed to NASA at Houston and the various networks worldwide. This further degraded the images.
Subsequent missions used a different camera that gave a color signal using a revolving color filter wheel, this gave a very much better image than the Apollo 11 TV transmissions."
Incidentally, I personally doubt that Stanley Kubrick was behind the piss-poor Apollo imagery (as popularly believed). He was a far too talented perfectionist to have possibly crafted and vetted those horrendous "special fx" concoctions. More likely, some incompetent military-trained operatives of the United States armed forces' photographic units (working at the Lookout Mountain studios?) were tasked with the job - and simply weren't up to it."The first, simple optical printers were constructed early in the 1920s. Linwood G. Dunn expanded the concept in the 1930s, and during World War II he was commissioned by the United States armed forces' photographic units to design an optical printer that could be ordered as a stock item like a camera. Development continued well into the 1980s, when the printers were controlled with minicomputers. Prime examples of optical printing work include the matte work in Star Wars (1977)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_printer
That photograph has "studio" written all over it.heniek1812 » September 25th, 2018, 1:18 pm wrote:How can anyone believe that the pads with that beautiful gold foil would not have some dust on them ?????
The fact that some degree of moisture is necessary to hold fine dust together in the shape of a footprint has been much debated in the media, with the usual self-appointed "myth busters" presumptuously putting down their favorite strawman conspiracy theorists. The take-away for the common joe is that the case against the Moon landing fairy tale rests on moist footprints and a flag waving in the lunar wind.antipodean » September 26th, 2018, 6:38 am wrote:By the look of those foot print tread marks (to the upper right) the ground looks quite damp to me.