Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

JayUtah said:
Because colors in photographs are always true and unchanged regardless of technology or circumstances.
Click to expand...

Jay you're not suggesting that in a mere 40+ years that technology may have gotten better - truly a radical and unsupported contention indeed....lol
 
Hans said:
Jay you're not suggesting that in a mere 40+ years that technology may have gotten better - truly a radical and unsupported contention indeed....lol
Click to expand...

As equally unsupported a proposition as that Ektachrome film and a CCD might render colors identically in any era. Or any two film types. Or any unequally calibrated CCDs. Or that the Moon is the same color everywhere.
 
JayUtah said:
As equally unsupported a proposition as that Ektachrome film and a CCD might render colors identically in any era. Or any two film types. Or any unequally calibrated CCDs. Or that the Moon is the same color everywhere.
Click to expand...


I once shot a very well received monochrome photo of a snowscape. I broke a lot of rules, shooting up sun with a very short lens. In the print, the snow comes out a very dark gray with lighter highlights.* So Anders, if you saw that image, would you say it doesn't snow in Chicago, and landscape was covered with lava? How something appears on film, or any imaging system, including the human eye, depends on how it's lit.



*A lot of very expensive paper went into the trash getting the print right - the negative was very thin, except for the Sun and sky, which were very dense. I love the digital age!
 
SUSpilot said:
So Anders, if you saw that image, would you say it doesn't snow in Chicago, and landscape was covered with lava?
Click to expand...

Cherry picking a special case like that is unsustainable. My claim on the other hand is based on a large number of NASA color images of the moon landscape.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Cherry picking a special case like that is unsustainable. My claim on the other hand is based on a large number of NASA color images of the moon landscape.
Click to expand...


It's not cherry picking. My point is that lighting directly affects an image. After all, an overcast sky is blindingly white from above, to take an extreme example.

In this case, the sun angle reflecting from the dust is going to have a huge affect, with different spectra reflected to the camera.

Besides, as Jay mentioned, the Moon is not homogenous.

Finally, as any competent photographer will tell you, getting the true color (whatever that is!) in an image can be a monumental task.
 
SUSpilot said:
It's not cherry picking. My point is that lighting directly affects an image. After all, an overcast sky is blindingly white from above, to take an extreme example.

In this case, the sun angle reflecting from the dust is going to have a huge affect, with different spectra reflected to the camera.

Besides, as Jay mentioned, the Moon is not homogenous.

Finally, as any competent photographer will tell you, getting the true color (whatever that is!) in an image can be a monumental task.
Click to expand...

Now you have digressed to a straw man argument. You could check this out:

"An unbiased (representative) sample is a set of objects chosen from a complete sample using a selection process that does not depend on the properties of the objects." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)
 
SUSpilot said:
How something appears on film, or any imaging system, including the human eye, depends on how it's lit.
Click to expand...


^^^ This times a thousand. Anyone who's ever worked in the movie or publishing industries understands this completely.
 
Corsair 115 said:
^^^ This times a thousand. Anyone who's ever worked in the movie or publishing industries understands this completely.
Click to expand...

See also: anyone who's ever shot in RAW mode on dSLR and changed lighting mode from Sunny to Indoor
 
Corsair 115 said:
^^^ This times a thousand. Anyone who's ever worked in the movie or publishing industries understands this completely.
Click to expand...

The "red" patches on Starfleet uniforms are actually bright fuscia, not red. They only appear red when lit by the studio lighting instruments and photographed with the appropriate equipment.

Lindman's claim is based on colossal ignorance of one of the most well-known facts of photography, digital or chemical.
 
Sensor calibration and the mixing of filtered wavelengths also explains how the Chinese lander manages to take images with a warm cast while the rover takes images of the same terrain, only with a blue cast. Most post-landing cameras are simple uncalibrated cameras used only to verify landing etc. After the post-landing checkup, the calibrated (but more delicate) scientific data-gathering instruments are deployed, which is why the later, higher-resolution images show a more neutral gray including the subtle coloration seen on the Apollo 70mm color photographs.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The same accusation can be made for my Chang'e 3 claim, that I only cherry picked one special image that happened to look a bit brownish.

So here is another image from Chang'e 3: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2013-12/15/c_132968354_2.htm

From: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Change-3-Delivers-Rover-to-Lunar-Surface-235886501.html
Click to expand...

That's not a photo of the moon, it's a photo of a tv screen showing a video of the moon. Multiple levels of color inaccuracy.

ETA: Sorry, not a tv screen, a projection screen: http://www.china.org.cn/images/50988.jpg
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Do you agree that the photos you initially posted were not true color images?
Click to expand...

I think it was in favor of my claim that the Apollo images have black-and-white lunar landscapes with foreground objects in color. But I admit that more images from the China mission are needed to make a case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom