Astronomy / Space Apollo hi res images

Tomtom

Tomtom
BEKTOP 3APEMOB said:
They made photos of Earth for some reason. To show how it looks from there. Same reason applies to starry sky - take a pic to show how it looks from Luna.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, that's kind of the point; nobody had taken a picture of the Earth from the moon before, and a view of it from such a distance has major psychological and emotional (and political) effect. The sky, though? Meh. It's the same sky. Pretty much everyone has already seen it. Sure, from the Moon you can probably see more stars with the naked eye, but so what? We already had sky pictures taken from the surface of Earth that showed many times as many stars as are visible to the human eye.

BEKTOP 3APEMOB said:
As for camera limitations - they had to have high sensitivity film then - otherwise there wouldn't be such good indoor photos:

[url]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/686/21497492029_f6340ef901_c.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...
Objectively speaking, though - that isn't a good picture. It's dark, the colour and contrast is poor, and that's with the aperture wide open as you can tell by the short focal range. Subjectively though, it's a great pic!
 

BEKTOP 3APEMOB

BEKTOP 3APEMOB
Tomtom said:
Well, yes, that's kind of the point; nobody had taken a picture of the Earth from the moon before, and a view of it from such a distance has major psychological and emotional (and political) effect. The sky, though? Meh. It's the same sky. Pretty much everyone has already seen it. Sure, from the Moon you can probably see more stars with the naked eye, but so what? We already had sky pictures taken from the surface of Earth that showed many times as many stars as are visible to the human eye.


Objectively speaking, though - that isn't a good picture. It's dark, the colour and contrast is poor, and that's with the aperture wide open as you can tell by the short focal range. Subjectively though, it's a great pic!
Click to expand...

After such arguments I feel like my logic was smashed by the hammer of righteousness :)

As for dark photo - why you decided to ignore 2 photos of starry sky right next to it? And aperture doesn't matter if you are able to focus to infinity (which is what you need to take a photo of stars; and which is what they apparently able to do - see 2 photos of starry sky in my previous post)

Actually aperture matters, but in another way. It shows that they are able to open it wide, so more light able to get into lens, so higher shutter speeds are possible to capture low-light objects. Which is better for taking pics of starry sky :)
 
Last edited:

Tomtom

Tomtom
BEKTOP 3APEMOB said:
As for dark photo - why you decided to ignore 2 photos of starry sky right next to it? And aperture doesn't matter if you are able to focus to infinity (which is what you need to take a photo of stars; and which is what they apparently able to do - see 2 photos of starry sky in my previous post)

Actually aperture matters, but in another way. It shows that they are able to open it wide, so more light able to get into lens, so higher shutter speeds are possible to capture low-light objects. Which is better for taking pics of starry sky :)
Click to expand...
I didn't ignore the other two photos, I just didn't have anything to say about them :p

Those two photos are from the Apollo 17 mission (as is the "I'm shaving... in space" photo) and according to the captions they were taken with a 35mm camera, not the 70mm Hasselblad that were used on the surface. I can't find any details of what type of 35mm camera it is, so cannot comment on its capabilities.

The problem of capturing the stars in a photo taken on the Moon is that, during the lunar day, the ground is extremely bright and the sky is extremely black. This is very difficult for the camera to cope with. With the aperture open wide, if any part of the lit lunar surface is visible the whole picture will be washed out. You could get around this by pointing the camera straight up, but there are a couple of issues with this: firstly, the lunar surface would not be visible in the picture, thus defeating the purpose of taking the photo. And secondly, remember that the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' chests - to point it straight up would require the astronaut to lie down. Perhaps a little risky, in the circumstances!
 

BEKTOP 3APEMOB

BEKTOP 3APEMOB
Tomtom said:
I didn't ignore the other two photos, I just didn't have anything to say about them :p

Those two photos are from the Apollo 17 mission (as is the "I'm shaving... in space" photo) and according to the captions they were taken with a 35mm camera, not the 70mm Hasselblad that were used on the surface. I can't find any details of what type of 35mm camera it is, so cannot comment on its capabilities.

The problem of capturing the stars in a photo taken on the Moon is that, during the lunar day, the ground is extremely bright and the sky is extremely black. This is very difficult for the camera to cope with. With the aperture open wide, if any part of the lit lunar surface is visible the whole picture will be washed out. You could get around this by pointing the camera straight up, but there are a couple of issues with this: firstly, the lunar surface would not be visible in the picture, thus defeating the purpose of taking the photo. And secondly, remember that the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' chests - to point it straight up would require the astronaut to lie down. Perhaps a little risky, in the circumstances!
Click to expand...

Looking through more photos I admit that there are different cams for inside and outside. And there were 6 landing missions, not 17. Now I came to agreement with myself that it's ok that there's no stars there. I don't like it though. They should've given them at least 1 camera on one of these missions set to take great starry sky pics on moon :)

 
Last edited:

Tomtom

Tomtom
BEKTOP 3APEMOB said:
They should've given them at least 1 camera on one of these missions set to take great starry sky pics on moon :)
Click to expand...
Can't argue with you there - such a picture would be pretty cool and may even now be possible, with our more advanced photographic technology. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long before someone gets back up there (manned or otherwise) to take a few snaps!
 

BEKTOP 3APEMOB

BEKTOP 3APEMOB
Tomtom said:
Can't argue with you there - such a picture would be pretty cool and may even now be possible, with our more advanced photographic technology. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long before someone gets back up there (manned or otherwise) to take a few snaps!
Click to expand...

Have to point out that such picture was very well and easily possible at times of those missions - they just decided that they don't want them for some reason (even though those missions general purpose was to make a point the they can land a human on moon while others can't; and so they needed cool imagery from them).
On the other hand modern China's Chang'e-3 lunar lander+rover didn't send anything like that either for some reason...
133136700_13931423022981n.jpg

chang-e-3-rover-moon.jpg

Seems like nobody cares about starry sky on moon except for me :)

And the same goes for Soviet Union - Lunohod 2 photo from moon:
C_Luna21_Horz05.jpg

C_Luna21_Horz13.jpg

20517-600.jpg

Lunohod 1 photos:
C_Luna17_Horz02.jpg

6-1-600.jpg

5-3-600.jpg
 
Last edited:

CmdrJacks

CmdrJacks
Probably not what you were hoping for but I thought I'd give it a go:

1. Unsharped

chang3 unsharp.png

2. Brightness & Contrast
chang3 washout.png

3. Combination of previous filters + hue and saturation for highlighting effect
chang3 combi and colorised.png


I'm not really skilled enough to tell you which of these are JPEG artifacts with any authority, but I think they're distinct enough to call them light sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom