ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Trebor on April 07, 2012, 10:27:29 AM
-
Question, in many of the images in AS12-46 there is a blue glow around brightly lit objects (for example : AS12-46-6826).
It looks like a result of the over-exposed object but why is it a halo-like blue glow?
-
This is also something I have wondered about. It came up recently in a youtube discussion, and I honestly had no real answer.
-
This is something that an experienced photographer could bring into focus, but my immediate thought was that the lens was dirty.
-
Comment in the NASA images site says it's due to a dust smudge on the lens. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html#6826
Edit: Looking at the images on that magazine, you can see evidence of the smudge starting around 6813 and going through to at least 6852.
-
Comment in the NASA images site says it's due to a dust smudge on the lens. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html#6826
Edit: Looking at the images on that magazine, you can see evidence of the smudge starting around 6813 and going through to at least 6852.
That would make sense with the more intense light from the astronaut making the effect more obvious.
-
Smudge. Blue light scatters more readily than red light, so halos created by scatter through lens contamination will often appear blue.
-
And in the same series of Apollo 12 images, the ALSJ notes that darker objects in the center of the image (i.e., behind the dust spot) appeared reddish. That's consistent with the blue light having been scattered out of the light from the subject.
The blue glow appeared around bright objects like space suits, not on the suits themselves. They were so bright that they probably saturated the film which is why they still appeared white despite having some of their blue scattered out.
-
There are numerous examples of exposure bleeding in some of those ALSEP setup shots which testify to that.
One particularly good one looks at Bean cross-sun with a crosshair over his legs. The sunlit half of his legs have bled out the crosshair while the part over the shadow side can still be seen. It's a great rebuttal to the crosshairs argument. (the one I'm talking about is in Michael Light's book Full Moon)
-
Trivia regarding Apollo 12 - did you know that they accidentally left an exposed film magazine on the lunar surface? Somehow they lost count, or changed the nomenclature at the last minute such that their checklists didn't catch it.
I always wondered what pictures were on that magazine. Percy and the other deniers are probably right in that if we could retrieve that magazine today, it would probably be ruined by heat and radiation. After 42+ years.
-
Trivia regarding Apollo 12 - did you know that they accidentally left an exposed film magazine on the lunar surface? Somehow they lost count, or changed the nomenclature at the last minute such that their checklists didn't catch it.
I always wondered what pictures were on that magazine. Percy and the other deniers are probably right in that if we could retrieve that magazine today, it would probably be ruined by heat and radiation. After 42+ years.
Those two were useless. First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
-
Those two were useless. First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
I'd hesitate to call anyone who managed to put their boots on the moon "useless," but now that you mention it, they also failed to pull off their surprise "group shot," when they misplaced the self-timer device they'd smuggled along. :/
-
Those two were useless. First...
Oh, come on. They were easily the most entertaining lunar crew of the entire Apollo program. Pete Conrad lines like "That may have been a small one for Neil, but it was a big one for me" were real gems.
-
There's a reason for the casting of Dave Foley in From the Earth to the Moon, certainly.
-
Stop taking me so seriously. Apollo 12 is my favourite mission.
-
Stop taking me so seriously. Apollo 12 is my favourite mission.
Same with me. Apollo 12 was literally the best. You should watch the Apollo 12 section of "From the Earth to the Moon". It's so awesome.
On topic:
I'm kind of necro'ing this post, but I haven't been in on the action lately and so I'm just catching up. That's a really cool effect. Like people already said, it's a dust smudge, but light has really awesome qualities where you never know what may have caused it.
-
Stop taking me so seriously. Apollo 12 is my favourite mission.
Check this out: Neil Armstrong's tribute to Apollo 12:
-
First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
And of course, Al Bean has to get 6 stitches in his forehead after getting cracked in the head by a camera at splashdown. (Admittedly it was kind of a rough splashdown.)
I think there's a reason Al became a painter rather than a photographer in later life.
-
First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
Which magazine was it? National Geographic? Playboy?
-
First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
Which magazine was it? National Geographic? Playboy?
That would be National Selenographic. I'm sure it wasn't Playboy because that was firmly fixed to their cuff checklists.
-
The Optimist: The glass is half full
The Pessimist: The glass is half empty
The Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be
The CT: The reflections in the glass clearly show a second light source. Besides, the radiation
levels would have caused the water to boil. And why can't you see any stars?
-
The Economist: The low marginal cost of filling the unused volume means the fixed investment in the glass is not fully utilized.
-
Post modernist: This is not a glass.
-
Account sales executive: They said there'd be free refills.
-
Flight Surgeon: Flight, please have Commander Young drink the rest of the water and take his f-ing potassium supplements.
-
Dada Poet: Discover love for the void and recognize that glasses are abstractions of the human spirit.
-
...kinda reminds me of this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Smileys/dbc665ca.jpg)
;D ;D
-
There's a ren faire stand-up comedy duo called Puke and Snot; a quote from their act has it, "Some people look at this glass and say it's half full. Others just gaze stupidly into the cup."
-
I think that probably sums up my membership of this board over the years ... my signature has created more conversation that any of the points I have ever made.
:D
-
The opportunist: While you guys were standing there arguing, I drank your water.
-
The Black Widow: Oh, you drank that? Good... because it wasn't water.
-
The Physicist: It is completely full, half with liquid, the other half with air.
The Homemaker: It doesn't matter, I have to wash it later either way.
The Drunk: Somebody left the ice out of my drink.
-
Question, in many of the images in AS12-46 there is a blue glow around brightly lit objects (for example : AS12-46-6826).
It looks like a result of the over-exposed object but why is it a halo-like blue glow?
Could also be a blue screen halo effect perhaps.
-
Question, in many of the images in AS12-46 there is a blue glow around brightly lit objects (for example : AS12-46-6826).
It looks like a result of the over-exposed object but why is it a halo-like blue glow?
Could also be a blue screen halo effect perhaps.
Halation. When I was in high school, after seeing Nicholas and Alexandra, I deliberately shot a lot of Ektachrome (and burned a lot of mom and dad's money) trying for (and getting) the same affect.
I haven't tried it with a digital camera yet, but I suspect, given how hard the engineering types have worked to emulate film, that I'd get the same thing...
-
I have a big 500mm Sigma lens, get some blue glow with that at times.
-
In this case, I'm referring to an artifact due to the film's emulsion, not the optics.
-
Also with green chromakey you can get a bluish glow.
-
Also with green chromakey you can get a bluish glow.
Doesn't look the same. One is due to diffraction within the film emulsion and some reflection off the film itself due to sever over-exposure. The other is caused by bleed through in the electronics.
I'll let dwight and Jay deal with the latter, though - I'm better at photography than videography.
-
Given my experience with my Sigma lens, I would guess lens effect is number one on the list of explanations.
-
Chroma key, you say? It is pretty blatantly obvious you wouldn't know a chroma key from a bucket of black level amidst a bunch of color bars.
-
Or a bucket of blacker-than-black...
-
Mind you, I'm pretty sure a chroma-key goes hand in hand with a gen-lock.
-
And when you open it, it leads you right to the back porch, where you may or may not find a burst of color.
-
Never the same color?
-
Those two were useless. First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
I think all the astronauts should be fined for littering...
-
Never the same color?
Never TWICE the same color. NTSC.
At least that's how I heard it when I was in TV broadcasting. (It kinda earned its name, too.)
I also learned that SECAM stood for Something Essentially Contrary to the American Method (after all, it was French), and PAL was Peace At Last.
-
...after all, it was French...
..and thus Systeme Evolue Contre les Americains.
-
Those two were useless. First, they destroy the television camera. Then they smudge the camera lens on one of the Hasselblads. Then they leave a magazine on the surface.
I think all the astronauts should be fined for littering...
Make them go back to the Moon and pick everything up. I'm sure they'd agree to this "punishment." ;)
-
No, no NO! I have been very bad. I litter all the time. Send me to the moon as punishment.
-
In this case, I'm referring to an artifact due to the film's emulsion, not the optics.
Yes, film halation is the property of a film's base (and, to a lesser extent, its emultion) that mimics a prism in the sense that light reflects internally. That is, light passing through the emulsion into the base reflects internally from the rear-facing base boundary and back up into the emulsion. Since light strikes the film at an angle on the edges, it will reflect back from the rear of the base to hit a different place on the emulsion, causing artifacts.
The blue glow in the Apollo photograph is not likely to be film halation. Halation rarely extends so far away from boundaries between high contrast.
Most modern films have anti-halation coatings on the rear of the film base. Film halation was not a problem for Apollo owing mainly to the extremely thin film base and the application of this coating to the Estar base.
Another form of halation occurs in the optics, but it is merely chromatic aberration at small f-stops manifesting itself in the final image as an effect similar to film halation. Its physical cause and properties have nothing to do with film halation.
-
Also with green chromakey you can get a bluish glow.
Hogwash. With green chromakey you get green spill and halation, not blue.
I hate having to clean up chromakey spill in my photographs, so I use lumakeying whenever possible. That is, I photograph the subject against matte velvet black. If I use chromakeying, I use blue. Green is too close to flesh tone to get a proper separation.
Key halation occurs when the thresholding mechanism (either the algorithm for doing it digitally, or the saturation for doing it optically) fails to find a clean edge, leading to a misregistration or poor fit between the holdout matte and the separation matte. This can sometimes let a small fringe of the key color leak out around the foreground.
Key spill occurs when colored light reflects from the key screen onto the foreground. Typically the screen must be brightly and uniformly lit, which interferes in small studios such as mine with the more subtle artistic lighting on the subject. So the subject will often have an undesired color cast relating to the key color. After extraction, manual localized hue corrections have to be applied.
Of course none of that explains the massive blue aura around the astronaut. It's not characteristic of any sort of keying error. Sheesh.
-
I have a big 500mm Sigma lens, get some blue glow with that at times.
I think it's cute how you don't know that long lenses are far less susceptible to optical halation than short lenses. Next time you try to create a sock puppet who supposedly has photography experience, do more homework.
-
I find it easy to visualize how you could get blue "within the lines" of the figure you were trying to separate from background.
How would you get a blue halo outside of the subject? I can't seem to think of a scenario that would make this likely. Perhaps someone with more experience could explain.
(Only thing I can think of is bleed, optical interference, etc. causing sufficient discoloration of areas outside the figure proper sufficient to throw off the keying. But I can't see how this would extend for very far! Now, throw hair or angora sweaters into the mix, and yeah, all sorts of horrible things happen. But beta cloth?)
-
In this case, I'm referring to an artifact due to the film's emulsion, not the optics.
Yes, film halation is the property of a film's base (and, to a lesser extent, its emultion) that mimics a prism in the sense that light reflects internally. That is, light passing through the emulsion into the base reflects internally from the rear-facing base boundary and back up into the emulsion. Since light strikes the film at an angle on the edges, it will reflect back from the rear of the base to hit a different place on the emulsion, causing artifacts.
The blue glow in the Apollo photograph is not likely to be film halation. Halation rarely extends so far away from boundaries between high contrast.
Most modern films have anti-halation coatings on the rear of the film base. Film halation was not a problem for Apollo owing mainly to the extremely thin film base and the application of this coating to the Estar base.
Another form of halation occurs in the optics, but it is merely chromatic aberration at small f-stops manifesting itself in the final image as an effect similar to film halation. Its physical cause and properties have nothing to do with film halation.
Honestly, I didn't bother to look at the image to which he was referring. I though it was something off a hot spot (corner reflection of the sun) in the image.
Good point about long lenses, BTW. Some of my favorite images in my 35mm days were up-sun shots using a 28mm lens.
-
Honestly, I didn't bother to look at the image to which he was referring.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6826
Certainly not film or optical halation. My best hypothesis is still contamination on the lens, probably very fine dust.
-
I have seen early Chromakey, Monty Python's flying circus uses it a few times, and that is *not* Chromakey edge screw ups. For one, the glow is somewhat visible over the whole of the astronaut.
-
Honestly, I didn't bother to look at the image to which he was referring.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6826
Certainly not film or optical halation. My best hypothesis is still contamination on the lens, probably very fine dust.
The ALSJ -
"Pete took this partial pan from the southeast rim of Middle Crescent just before he and Al headed back for the LM. The frames are AS12-46- 6836 to 6844. Note the strong colors at the center of the righthand frames. Examination of successive frames indicate that this related to the camera lens, very likely a dust smudge. Kipp Teague notes "The lens aberration begins at as12-46-6813. It's a blue glow around the astronaut in 6818, again in 6826, a discoloration in other frames, affecting clarity in most, and it's not gone again until 6853 (back in the LM). Whatever the phenomenon is, it has a varying impact on color based on the brightness of the central object in the image. On bright subjects, the aberration adds a blue cast, and on darker subjects, the aberration adds a reddish cast." I note that it also seems to vary with sun angle."
I also recall some tiny blue blobs on some exposures caused by very fine particles getting onto the film.....not sure how....but the explanation pointed towards the emulsion on the film itself, having the top layer eroded.
-
I also recall some tiny blue blobs on some exposures caused by very fine particles getting onto the film.....not sure how...
The magazines were not standard Hasselblad mags, nor were they installed in the customary way. They were "longroll" magazines designed by a third-party company in Hollywood -- not specifically for Apollo, but modified for use on Apollo by the company. The longroll magazine could hold up to 180 frames, depending on film thickness. The standard Hasselblad magazine for this format, using commercial film, holds 12-20 frames.
Normally the magazine is fitted with a darkslide to prevent exposing the film during magazine changes. The magazine is attached to the back of the body and then the darkslide is removed, opening the gate to the light path. Subsequently the magazine cannot be removed until the darkslide is once again inserted.
However for Apollo the cameras and magazines were modified to allow interchanging the magazines without the darkslide in place. The magazine was removed from storage, the darkslide was removed and discarded, and the magazine attached to the back. At the end of the roll, the film trailer was simply wound into the magazine and the magazine detached and stored. Several initial and final frames of each roll were often sunstruck.
All of that has been to point out that the possibility of dust contamination and subsequent scratching was very real and even likely. After the darkslide was removed, nothing prevented lunar dust from adhering to the film surface and then being pressed subsequently against the reseau plate. Conversely, with the magazine removed, nothing prevented dust from adhering to the exposed reseau plate. Either mechanism, or both, would subject the film to possible particulate erosion.
but the explanation pointed towards the emulsion on the film itself, having the top layer eroded.
Yes, I confirmed this possibility with my own scratch tests on E-3 and E-6 emulsions. Lightly abraded, the resulting transparency biases toward blue in the abrasion spots.
-
I also recall some tiny blue blobs on some exposures caused by very fine particles getting onto the film.....not sure how...
The magazines were not standard Hasselblad mags, nor were they installed in the customary way. They were "longroll" magazines designed by a third-party company in Hollywood -- not specifically for Apollo, but modified for use on Apollo by the company. The longroll magazine could hold up to 180 frames, depending on film thickness. The standard Hasselblad magazine for this format, using commercial film, holds 12-20 frames.
Normally the magazine is fitted with a darkslide to prevent exposing the film during magazine changes. The magazine is attached to the back of the body and then the darkslide is removed, opening the gate to the light path. Subsequently the magazine cannot be removed until the darkslide is once again inserted.
However for Apollo the cameras and magazines were modified to allow interchanging the magazines without the darkslide in place. The magazine was removed from storage, the darkslide was removed and discarded, and the magazine attached to the back. At the end of the roll, the film trailer was simply wound into the magazine and the magazine detached and stored. Several initial and final frames of each roll were often sunstruck.
All of that has been to point out that the possibility of dust contamination and subsequent scratching was very real and even likely. After the darkslide was removed, nothing prevented lunar dust from adhering to the film surface and then being pressed subsequently against the reseau plate. Conversely, with the magazine removed, nothing prevented dust from adhering to the exposed reseau plate. Either mechanism, or both, would subject the film to possible particulate erosion.
but the explanation pointed towards the emulsion on the film itself, having the top layer eroded.
Yes, I confirmed this possibility with my own scratch tests on E-3 and E-6 emulsions. Lightly abraded, the resulting transparency biases toward blue in the abrasion spots.
Thanks for the explanation. I can hardly envisage a counter explanation....relevant to this being faked on Earth..... as to why or how this was even done. It's just another incidental example of stunning consistency of the Apollo record.
-
Yes, I confirmed this possibility with my own scratch tests on E-3 and E-6 emulsions. Lightly abraded, the resulting transparency biases toward blue in the abrasion spots.
And the top layer of the emulsion is the blue sensitive layer, so if you damage only that layer the result is a blue scratch.
Below the blue-sensitive layer is a yellow filter, i.e., it stops blue.
Next is a green-blue sensitive layer. Because of the filter, it responds only to green light in the scene.
And at the bottom is a red-blue sensitive layer. It similarly responds only to red in the scene.
So the color of the scratch depends on how deeply you scratch the emulsion. Scratch just the blue-sensitive layer and you get blue scratches. Scratch the blue and green layers but not red and you'll get cyan. Scratch them all and you'll get white.
-
So the color of the scratch depends on how deeply you scratch the emulsion.
Exactly the results I got. I scratched progressively harder to reveal the different manifestations of abrasion damage, down to the base. Now if I can only find where I put the images of the results...