Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

I certainly hope to get to the bottom of it.

Start by computing the shutter speed I asked you for. Unless you aren't competent in mathematics, in which case ask me for help.

 

[Vixen]

No, the Moon is irrelevant to my question.

If you have something that's a certain brightness, and you've experimentally proven that it takes 10 seconds for it to show up on film, how many fewer seconds will it take if the thing is 30% brighter?

It's simple math, Vixen. Did they teach you any of that in accountant's school?

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing. In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones. Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

 

[Mojo]

Please use the clickback arrow to discover what I was responding to.

I did. You claimed that you were "citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo", but you failed to provide an actual citation. That's is what is being talked about here.

Please provide the citation.

 

[Vixen]

Start by computing the shutter speed I asked you for. Unless you aren't competent in mathematics, in which case ask me for help.

You tell me.

 

[Mojo]

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing. In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones. Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

What sort of "radiation"? Exactly how does it "mess with the contrast", and how is this relevant to the length of exposure needed to record images of stars using 160 ASA film with an aperture of f5.6?

 

[JayUtah]

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing.

No.

In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones.

Irrelevant handwaving. This is Photography 101 and Introduction to Arithmetic.

Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

No.

 

[JesseCuster]

You tell me.

The answer is an exposure time of 7 seconds.

If something takes 10 seconds to properly expose, then something that is ~30% brighter will require 100/130 times as much exposure, 10 seconds * 100/130 = ~7.7 seconds.

The arithmetic here is apparently too complex for you. Do you need it explained?

edit: saw Jay's post, realise my stupid mistake.

 

[JayUtah]

You tell me.

It's a simple ratio.

Something that is 100 units bright will be 130 units bright if it's 30% brighter. That's a ratio of 130/100, or 1.3. Something that takes 10 seconds to expose on film will take 10/1.3 seconds (= 7.7 seconds) if its 30% brighter.

I'm sorry, but you failed 7th grade math for today.

 

[Vixen]

No.


Irrelevant handwaving. This is Photography 101 and Introduction to Arithmetic.


No.

Quick google says:

To calculate shutter speed based on a percentage of light increase, multiply your current shutter speed by the decimal equivalent of your increase. For example, if you want to increase your light by \(25\%\), you multiply your shutter time by \(1.25\)


So that'd be 10 /1.30. [ed.]

 

[Mojo]

Quick google says:

To calculate shutter speed based on a percentage of light increase, multiply your current shutter speed by the decimal equivalent of your increase. For example, if you want to increase your light by \(25\%\), you multiply your shutter time by \(1.25\)


So that'd be 10 /1.30. [ed.]

Why is that rounded to 2 decimal places?

Oddly, while I can see the right answer in the quotation, the post visible above still says "So that'd be 10 x 1.30."

 

[JesseCuster]

Quick google says:

To calculate shutter speed based on a percentage of light increase, multiply your current shutter speed by the decimal equivalent of your increase. For example, if you want to increase your light by \(25\%\), you multiply your shutter time by \(1.25\)

Why does someone who is a professional numbersmith, a scientist, understands photography, etc. need to ask Google for how to do something that requires nothing other than the utterly basic arithmetic and photography knowledge to calculate?

 

[Smock]

A fact does not require attribution. A fact is not attributable to anyone. The Ektachrome 160 ASA used for Apollo 11 is factual. You can google it or wikipedia it.

Your response, and the discussion thereof, was initiated by a post where you claimed to be "citing" someone. Care to try again?

 

[Mojo]

Quick google says:

To calculate shutter speed based on a percentage of light increase, multiply your current shutter speed by the decimal equivalent of your increase. For example, if you want to increase your light by \(25\%\), you multiply your shutter time by \(1.25\)


So that'd be 10 /1.30. [ed.]

How much longer, as a percentage, is that than 1/250 of a second?

 

[JayUtah]

So that'd be 10 /1.30. [ed.]

Yes, I just showed you how to compute that. Honestly I would have thought adjusting something by a ratio would have been something they taught you in accountancy school.

So if it still takes several seconds to expose stars even if they're marginally brighter as seen from outside Earth's atmosphere, how is Marcus Allen still not lying? How can he expect stars in photos that were shot at 1/125 second?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How much would that shorten the necessary exposure time?

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

No, the Moon is irrelevant to my question.

If you have something that's a certain brightness, and you've experimentally proven that it takes 10 seconds for it to show up on film, how many fewer seconds will it take if the thing is 30% brighter?

It's simple math, Vixen. Did they teach you any of that in accountant's school?

I certainly hope to get to the bottom of it.

Keep digging!

Start by computing the shutter speed I asked you for. Unless you aren't competent in mathematics, in which case ask me for help.

You tell me.

No.

[....] This is Photography 101 and Introduction to Arithmetic.

She knew she was out of her depth even before you mentioned the number 101.

It's a simple ratio.

Something that is 100 units bright will be 130 units bright if it's 30% brighter. That's a ratio of 130/100, or 1.3. Something that takes 10 seconds to expose on film will take 10/1.3 seconds (= 7.7 seconds) if its 30% brighter.

I'm sorry, but you failed 7th grade math for today.

How much longer, as a percentage, is that than 1/250 of a second?

How dare you try to f/stop me from exposing this photogrammametrically hoax!​

 

[Steve]

Yes, I just showed you how to compute that. Honestly I would have thought adjusting something by a ratio would have been something they taught you in accountancy school.

Vixen's accountancy school didn't bother with mundane things like numbers and math. The students were much too special for that.

 

[JayUtah]

She knew she was out of her depth even before you mentioned the number 101.

"If it takes 10 seconds to do a job, but someone figures out how to speed up the process by 30%, how long will it take?"

I would say that sounds like a question an accountant would know how to answer without having to Google. Some of my engineering staff teaches a remedial mathematics class in the evenings to people hoping to pass the entrance exam to be apprentice pipefitters or electricians. (It's the same exam.) This sounds like one of those questions, which usually boils down to knowing whether to multiply or divide by the ratio. But I see @Vixen cocked that up too initially. (She didn't edit her post fast enough and someone caught it.) Maybe I'll see if there's a seat available in the next session for her.

 

[bknight]

Yes, I just showed you how to compute that. Honestly I would have thought adjusting something by a ratio would have been something they taught you in accountancy school.

So if it still takes several seconds to expose stars even if they're marginally brighter as seen from outside Earth's atmosphere, how is Marcus Allen still not lying? How can he expect stars in photos that were shot at 1/125 second?

I know, I know, it is because Marcus is a GRIFTER that lies all the time when discussing Apollo.

 

[junkshop]

Someone asked a question and I responded.

That you did, and your response revealed that you didn't know (among other things) what Ektachrome was/is.

The range and depth of ignorance you have displayed here is truly a thing to behold.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

Like the ones they landed on the moon you mean?