Stunning hi res images from the Apollo program
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21660110255/in/album-72157658601662068/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21660110255/in/album-72157658601662068/
Astronomy / Space Apollo hi res images
- Thread starter Ceekay
- Start date
Beautiful pictures. Deserve their place in the Astronomy Forum
All taken with a Hasselblad - very expensive medium format camera.
They left it behind if you want to pick up a cheap one, journey might be expensive though.
They left it behind if you want to pick up a cheap one, journey might be expensive though.
This is a question I have always had about the moon landings. Logically they used the best and most advanced camera systems on the planet, so why are all the films and photos so fuzzy? The above photos are what we should expect from the cost and technology involved, but everything shown at the time and since, have always been; low resolution and very poor quality. Yes I understand the live broadcast was transmitted over 1000s of miles, but didn't that have anything on film to bring back with them? These thoughts can only fuel the conspiracy theory, of it didn't really happen or it was faked, as in the Capricorn One film.
I'd say you have that backwards. If it were faked the temptation would be to make it just a little too perfect.
X-Terminator
Banned
I noticed some of those pics have no footprints leading towards the cameraman but show the lander (doh!). Plus just how did they have that 2-way conversation back to control whilst being 1000s of miles away having passed through the Van Allen Belt by using passive radiation from the boosters to protect them?
Anyway, it made many great movies
Anyway, it made many great movies
Last edited:
Some stuff was lost and some stuff was filed away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/apollo_films_out_of_cold.html
So NASA got the Horizons update (Airless planetary landings) in 1969. We aren't too far behind...
Z...
- - - Updated - - -
If it were me, I would have walked around in such a way as to NOT get my footprints in the shot. Something I do for a lot of my photos.
As for the quality of the pics... Think of the exposure protection needed for that camera, I suspect it's a pretty thick piece of glass it's shooting through, which would affect the output quite a bit.
Also, probably the only photos in history where getting your shadow in the shot is a good thing!
Z...
Z...
- - - Updated - - -
If it were me, I would have walked around in such a way as to NOT get my footprints in the shot. Something I do for a lot of my photos.
As for the quality of the pics... Think of the exposure protection needed for that camera, I suspect it's a pretty thick piece of glass it's shooting through, which would affect the output quite a bit.
Also, probably the only photos in history where getting your shadow in the shot is a good thing!
Z...
Last edited:
Thargoid!
Actually all the stuff has been available since the 70's, but if you wanted to see them in their high-definition, super detailed glory you had to look at them in person. What people forget in this age of digital media is that in the "old days" when you took a picture, if you wanted people to see it, they had to actually be in its physical presence and look at it with their own eyes. The video is what people remember the most because it could be transmitted over TV. Film is much sharper, but again, back in the day, you had to have people gather in a room to see it. So after it was initially released to the public all of the actual photographs and films went into filing cabinets somewhere until someone sat down and scanned them in high resolution for distribution. There are thousands and thousands of pictures and untold hours of footage... someone just needs to sit down and scan it all.
I noticed some of those pics have no footprints leading towards the cameraman but show the lander (doh!). Plus just how did they have that 2-way conversation back to control whilst being 1000s of miles away having passed through the Van Allen Belt by using passive radiation from the boosters to protect them?
Anyway, it made many great movies
Either that, or they actually did it...
The truth is, almost 50 years later, all the scientists, all the pilots, all the doctors, all the engineers and all the astronomers in the world have been studying evidence of the Apollo missions. And in all those 50 years, the best evidence the moon hoaxers can come up with are discrepancies in photographs that actual photographers say aren't discrepancies. And not only that, but a lot of real smart people who know space, like China and especially Russia (who practically invented space travel), who would love nothing more than to embarrass the hell out of the United States... they agree it happened too.But keep holding onto those shadows and footprints.
Last edited:
No. That's what they think we think they would do.
So they make them poor so we think they think we think they are real because we would think they were thinking we were thinking they would do something just like that.
Kinda obvious really.
http://www.michaellight.net/fm-intro/
heres a link to a nice book by michael knights brother michael light. that was put out in 99 of high res photos of the Apollo missions, at the time it was a exhibition of photos blown up to super size. I think I saw it at the south bank
but ive seen some of the wall hung photos at the NY planetarium. he did another good coffee table book called 100 suns which is just photos of nuclear explosions, if your into that sort of thing.
heres a link to a nice book by michael knights brother michael light. that was put out in 99 of high res photos of the Apollo missions, at the time it was a exhibition of photos blown up to super size. I think I saw it at the south bank
but ive seen some of the wall hung photos at the NY planetarium. he did another good coffee table book called 100 suns which is just photos of nuclear explosions, if your into that sort of thing.
Last edited:
My favorites so far:
I wonder why I can't see photos of starry sky - at least one guy from all these expeditions should have got same idea - point your camera towards the sky, so there wouldn't be any bright moon surface in it. Otherwise beautiful and moving photos.
PS: if you find photos of starry sky in there somewhere - please share a link with me
I wonder why I can't see photos of starry sky - at least one guy from all these expeditions should have got same idea - point your camera towards the sky, so there wouldn't be any bright moon surface in it. Otherwise beautiful and moving photos.
PS: if you find photos of starry sky in there somewhere - please share a link with me
Last edited:
Because of the amount of light stars give off and the speed of the camera shutter. There's not enough light from the stars to register on film unless you keep the camera still and keep the aperture open. There's still not a camera in existence that can capture what the human eye sees in a single shot. The same rules apply on Earth... Go outside on a really starry night and take a picture of the sky with a standard shutter speed... You'll get a black rectangle.
The really pretty pictures of night skies come from people who set a camera up and then leave the aperture open for a nice long time to capture the low light. Of course, if the camera is moving or anything moves while the picture is taken, it shows up as a streak.Even in far fetched case they didn't have tripods (or possibly find something to put camera on) for their cameras on all of these expeditions. Stars should be a bit brighter from Luna and one of the guys could hold it in his hands and hold shutter button for 15-30seconds. Or these cameras on every expedition didn't have the option for longer exposure and no high sensitivity film rolls? It seems unlikely to me - how else would they make such great photos in low light conditions inside their modules? I wouldn't mind seeing something like this:Because of the amount of light stars give off and the speed of the camera shutter. There's not enough light from the stars to register on film unless you keep the camera still and keep the aperture open. There's still not a camera in existence that can capture what the human eye sees in a single shot. The same rules apply on Earth... Go outside on a really starry night and take a picture of the sky with a standard shutter speed... You'll get a black rectangle.
No, they couldn't do that. Most of the photos were taken from cameras that were mounted to the astronauts' chests, and the shutter speeds were set to 1/250s. The operator could alter the aperture size to cope with varying light levels, but that's pretty much it. The camera equipment was pretty much the same for all of the lunar missions.
Also, the other reason they didn't take pretty long exposure starry sky pictures is because there was no point. They weren't there to look at the sky - they already knew what the sky looked like. They were there to study the moon, and that's what they did.
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.
As for camera limitations - they had to have high sensitivity film then - otherwise there wouldn't be such good indoor photos:
And here is the pic of starry sky during flight (not so bad for 1/250 shutter). Why not do that on the moon?:
And here's one with apparently different shutter speed (notice pointy stars instead of streaks):
That's 17 expeditions Karl!... 17!
Because of the amount of light stars give off and the speed of the camera shutter. There's not enough light from the stars to register on film unless you keep the camera still and keep the aperture open. There's still not a camera in existence that can capture what the human eye sees in a single shot. The same rules apply on Earth... Go outside on a really starry night and take a picture of the sky with a standard shutter speed... You'll get a black rectangle.
With respect, those are good guesses, but not quite correct.
Earth based photographs, avoiding blurr and tracking are done with a sidereal mount. This slowly tracks the camera with respect to the tracking of the heavens.
The reason the photographs of the moon do not show many stars is because the images would have been captured on material specifically designed for the lighting conditions and the images sought. The speed of the film material would have been fast enough to take into account any uncontrollable movement, but slow enough to capture the detail that we see.
In these days of digital photography, these have become lost arts, but 35mm film cameras would have various DIN settings and different film to suit.
Then you would have the immense pleasure of setting the f-stop, speed and focus, giving you the absolutely best opportunity to wait 6 weeks or so to get back an image that would be quickly thrown into the bin and forgotten about.
Now it's all camera phones.
