Did the DailyMail (FAIL) just make this up?

[ChrLz]

I note this is being bandied around on other forums, and leaped upon by NASA haters and the last few Apollo deniers:
Daily Mail article/fantasy

It *sounds* as though NASA has been sitting on many images and has suddenly released them - yet no linkbacks, no source...  I think it is just a badly worded beat up - and the numbers don't make sense either way - from Apollo 4-17 there were 19000 images just taken on the Hasselblads...

I can't find any source for this - I think some 'reporter' may have just made it all up (or perhaps suddenly discovered the LPI website...).  Or are there in fact some new images that have been released?  I was pretty sure all of Apollo was on the public record and mostly had been from day one..

[Peter B]

Working from the assumption of incompetence before malice, I'll go for a variant of your LPI discovery theory: the reporter watches the Apollo 8 Earthrise photo sim, goes to NASA's website to find out more, stumbles on the LPI gallery and assumes it was somehow related to the release of the Apollo 8 sim. I've previously seen most of the images presented in the DM story, so I find it hard to believe that those I'm not familiar with have somehow been suppressed until now (yes, I know, argument from incredulity...).

[ChrLz]

Thanks, Peter.  I've now looked as hard as I can (well, in 30 minutes or so ) and found absolutely nothing about any new release other than that Earthrise video - nothing on the LPI site or in their news archives, not a single link anywhere that doesn't lead back to the Daily Fail...

[grmcdorman]

Ah, esteemed English journalism. Over here in the Colonies, we just have to make do with civic mayors for our quality, um, news.

[Glom]

I was confused as well and suspected the journalist just didn't know what he was talking about.

[Trebor]

... the journalist just didn't know what he was talking about.

It's the Daily Mail; That goes without saying.

[johnbutcher]

Oh! Dear!
The Daily Mail?
I like their crossword!
But for news, you might as well read the Ankh-Morpork Times.


JohnB

Sloop

[smartcooky]

I agree with the OP.  It very much looks to me like this journalist has just "discovered" the LPI website.


Perhaps someone should sent him a link to the ALSJ. This "newly released" information  would really blow his mind!

[Chew]

Related:

[Obviousman]

I think it is just hi-res on the LPI site; the LPI had all the images but most were low-res scans; the Project Apollo Archive did the majority of hi-res scans that were available; it seems that the LPI has now also done hi-res scans.

[smartcooky]

Related:

Just wow!!!

Did I hear that guy right? 60ft by 20ft at 72 dpi

By my quick calculation, that is nearly 900 megapixels!!

[ChrLz]

Related:

Just wow!!!

Did I hear that guy right? 60ft by 20ft at 72 dpi

By my quick calculation, that is nearly 900 megapixels!!

I haven't looked at the vid (not much bandwidth left, too lazy to recharge today!) but that calculation doesn't sound right - 60ft x 20ft x 72 ppi is only about 12.5Mp (60x12x20x12x72=12,441,600)

[smartcooky]

Related:

Just wow!!!

Did I hear that guy right? 60ft by 20ft at 72 dpi

By my quick calculation, that is nearly 900 megapixels!!

I haven't looked at the vid (not much bandwidth left, too lazy to recharge today!) but that calculation doesn't sound right - 60ft x 20ft x 72 ppi is only about 12.5Mp (60x12x20x12x72=12,441,600)

No. The calculation for megapixels is the number of pixels along the long side multiplied by the number of pixels along the short side e.g.

a 3000 pixel x 2000 pixel image is 6,000,000 pixels or 6 megapixels (essentially you have 2000 rows of 3000 pixels each)

60 ft by 20 ft image at 72 ppi is

60 x 12 x 72 = 51,840 pixels by 20 x 12 x 72 = 17,280 pixels

51,840 x 17,280 = 895,795,200 pixels, or 896 megapixels.

[ChrLz]

No. The calculation for megapixels is the number of pixels along the long side multiplied by the number of pixels along the short side e.g.

You are absolutely correct - I stoopidly left out a x72 in my calculation - should know better than to post just after waking up...

[smartcooky]

No. The calculation for megapixels is the number of pixels along the long side multiplied by the number of pixels along the short side e.g.

You are absolutely correct - I stoopidly left out a x72 in my calculation - should know better than to post just after waking up...

Well, just to satisfy my own curiosity, I tried to create an 896 MP image in Photoshop. I can't get these actual dimensions because 30,000 pixels for any dimension is the limit in my PS7, so I went with 29940 x 29940 which works out to around 896 MP.

It creates an uncompressed .TIF file of 2.5 GB. No wonder the only way they could store it it was on tape!!