One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Duane Daman]

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting.

Oh for gods sakes Duane, you have just hit an all time low on the ignorance scale.....

I can't wait to see the amazing story you will need to invent out of thin air to expalin this major screwup.

Here's the info on blue colored lens flare and tungsten lighting at night .... and I didn't need to "invent this out of thin air ".

"W Smith,

Strong colour correction filters are very useful on digital. Suppose you shoot without a colour correction filter in tungsten light. The result is an overexposed red channel, a "correctly" exposed green channel, and an underexposed blue channel. When you then do a white balance correction the result is that the blue channel gets boosted considerably. The blue channel is the noisiest of the three channels so when you boost the blue channel you get a lot of noise (you may also find that the image becomes underexposed and requires additional tweaking).

If instead you use a blue CC filter then you balance the exposure of the three channels in the camera resulting in a less noisy image.

Small colour corrections can easily be done in the camera but larger shifts are often better accomplished by filters. Of course in low light using strong filters is a problem since they cost you light."

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JsAT

And here's an example of the same exact blue lens flare created by a streetlight at night .... If you look closely at the Apollo 14 photo , it's pretty obvious that it was taken at night , as the blinding sunshine on the Moon would have looked a tad brighter than that phony photo .

http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2007/10/2...-color-at-play/

[Craig Lamson]

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting.

Oh for gods sakes Duane, you have just hit an all time low on the ignorance scale.....

I can't wait to see the amazing story you will need to invent out of thin air to expalin this major screwup.

Here's the info on blue colored lens flare and tungsten lighting at night .... and I didn't need to "invent this out of thin air ".

"W Smith,

Strong colour correction filters are very useful on digital. Suppose you shoot without a colour correction filter in tungsten light. The result is an overexposed red channel, a "correctly" exposed green channel, and an underexposed blue channel. When you then do a white balance correction the result is that the blue channel gets boosted considerably. The blue channel is the noisiest of the three channels so when you boost the blue channel you get a lot of noise (you may also find that the image becomes underexposed and requires additional tweaking).

If instead you use a blue CC filter then you balance the exposure of the three channels in the camera resulting in a less noisy image.

Small colour corrections can easily be done in the camera but larger shifts are often better accomplished by filters. Of course in low light using strong filters is a problem since they cost you light."

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JsAT

And here's an example of the same exact blue lens flare created by a streetlight at night .... If you look closely at the Apollo 14 photo , it's pretty obvious that it was taken at night , as the blinding sunshine on the Moon would have looked a tad brighter than that phony photo .

http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2007/10/2...-color-at-play/

Excuse me me but I need to clean my keyboard because your answer caused me to spew diet coke everywhere!

How much deeper a hole are you going to dig for yourself Duane? The quote you posted has NOTHING to do with the color of the lens flare in the Apollo image, they were talking about reducing digital NOISE which is worse in the blue channel when using tungsten light, and even at that its not really a problem. And how would I know that? Well gee, I spend a very big part of my working life creating very high quailty images using digital capture and studio tungsten lighting. And YOUR experience is...besides hitting google? And the second image you posted was not taken with tungsten illumination....man you should have quit a LONG time ago.

Lets see now, If you shot with a daylight balance film or digital using tungsten light, the resulting image would be very YELLOW! Daylight is 5000-6000k, Tungsten is 2500-3500k. Understand?

A shot using a tungsten balance digital or film using tungsten light, the resulting image is normal color.

A shot using daylihgt balance digital or film using daylight, the resulting image is normanl color

A shot using tungsten balance digital of film using a daylight balance, the resulting image would have a BLUE color balance...not just the lens flares BUT THE ENTIRE IMAGE!

The truth will set you free Duane...learn it.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

It's very obvious that Jack was describing the difference between a Sun's atmospheric halo , from a Sun's overexposed camera flare ... but of course you and Burton both had to play a game of semantics with his explaination , as usual ....

Actually, I quite correctly mentioned the 22 degree halo effect on a couple of occasions. I have never read anything about a 'flare' from the atmosphere, though. Of course, flare and halo are two DIFFERENT effects... you do understand that, don't you Duane? Do a google search for some photographic websites that can take you through the basics of it.

Now, I gave multiple examples of photographic websites explaining flare and halo. NONE mentioned the atmosphere.

So it would be quite easy for Jack - or you - to prove me wrong. Provide a photographic website talking about / explaining flare and show where it says it is caused by the atmosphere. Not a hoaxer website, though - just a plain ol' website discussing photography, optics, astronomy, etc.

Somehow, I doubt you'll do so. Anyone want to take up bets against me?

[Dave Greer]

Well, if these photos were taken in a studio setting, then it can't be due to atmospheric particles either, since the spotlight is only going to be a few feet away! And that's disregarding the claim that the soundstages were set up in huge vacuum chambers. Either way, whether shot on a soundstage, in a vacuum chamber, or on the moon, the effect seen is nothing to do with atmospheric particles. Factors that DO play a rather important role are the number of camera aperture blades, the aperture setting, the lens design (including quality of coatings etc), exposure time, dust on lens, film type used, brightness of light source. (Incidentally, a polarising filter would also have an effect on the lens flare - as far as I know there were none used on the moon, but the CSM windows had a polarising coating IIRC which may well account for the slight differences seen in the Apollo 11 photo of the sun which don't show the round flare visible in the surface photos.

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting.

Looks like a similar colour to the blue lens flare seen in this frame grab, which is taken from

.

I don't think anyone is claiming that NASA faked Ed White's space-walk, so clearly it's possible to get a blue lens flare caused by sunlight in a vacuum. Possibly something to do with the optical coatings on the lens, not just the colour of the lightsource?

[Evan Burton]

This is purely a guess, and probably not a very good one, but would it have anything to do with the three-colour wheel in the TV camera?

[Craig Lamson]

This is purely a guess, and probably not a very good one, but would it have anything to do with the three-colour wheel in the TV camera?

I've not checked to confirm but the footage is said to have come from the DAC but if so that rules out the color wheel. more likely a simple chromic abberation caused by the coatings on lens.

Lens coatings come in different flavors. The Germans invented the lens coating process and kept it secret until WWII ended.

You can tell if a lens is uncoated by looking at a reflection of a light on the surface of the lens. If the reflection is white, the lens is uncoated.

Next came single coated lenses which were typical during the 50's through the 70's and are still found on some cheap cameras today. A light reflection from a single coated lens will look BLUE or amber.

Finally we have modern multi-coated lenses. Light reflections from thee lenses will look green or magenta.

source: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lenstech.htm#coating

But then again one could simply claim...without any suppport evidence...that blue reflections are caused by tungsten light! Simply amazing.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Well, if these photos were taken in a studio setting, then it can't be due to atmospheric particles either, since the spotlight is only going to be a few feet away! And that's disregarding the claim that the soundstages were set up in huge vacuum chambers. Either way, whether shot on a soundstage, in a vacuum chamber, or on the moon, the effect seen is nothing to do with atmospheric particles. Factors that DO play a rather important role are the number of camera aperture blades, the aperture setting, the lens design (including quality of coatings etc), exposure time, dust on lens, film type used, brightness of light source. (Incidentally, a polarising filter would also have an effect on the lens flare - as far as I know there were none used on the moon, but the CSM windows had a polarising coating IIRC which may well account for the slight differences seen in the Apollo 11 photo of the sun which don't show the round flare visible in the surface photos.

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting.

Looks like a similar colour to the blue lens flare seen in this frame grab, which is taken from

.

I don't think anyone is claiming that NASA faked Ed White's space-walk, so clearly it's possible to get a blue lens flare caused by sunlight in a vacuum. Possibly something to do with the optical coatings on the lens, not just the colour of the lightsource?

Thanks very much for posting Ed White's space walk in LOW EARTH ORBIT .

This video tape clearly shows two very important points which I have been discussing since the beginning of this thread ... The very SMALL size of the real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor , opposed to the too the large "Sun" reflections in the Apollo visors , and the appearance of the real Sun from the vacuum of space , which looks nothing like the "Sun" used for the Apollo photos .

I found a web site showing 2580 pictures of lens flare caused by the Sun , and not one of them show a blue colored lens flare .

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/lens-flare_16.html

The only picture containing blue lens flare was one caused by an artificial light source at night .

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/pds/pds046/...-~-ls006999.jpg

The frame grab from the Apollo 14 video , was obviously filmed at night .... Not only because of the blue lens flare but because of the extreme darkness of the footage .

Edited November 12, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Thanks very much for posting Ed White's space walk in LOW EARTH ORBIT .

You're welcome. Is your capitalisation of "low earth orbit" meant to suggest that lens flares must by definition be radically different from lens flares as photographed on the moon? Bottom line is, it's film taken in space of the sun causing a blue lens flare - something which you were suggesting is indicative of a tungsten spotlight. I've shown clear evidence, taken using a similar media, from the same era, of sunlight causing lens flare in space to be blue - like the one you showed in your Apollo 14 clip. Given that you've used image taken in low earth orbit to challenge the authenticity of lunar photos, why do you have an issue with others whom you disagree with doing the same as you?

This video tape clearly shows two very important points which I have been discussing since the beginning of this thread ... The very SMALL size of the real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor , opposed to the too the large "Sun" reflections in the Apollo visors , and the appearance of the real Sun from the vacuum of space , which looks nothing like the "Sun" used for the Apollo photos .

I think you're changing the subject away from the subject at hand old bean, but not to worry. It was proven that size of the reflection of the sun in the visor on the TV footage is due to some kind of exposure artefact within the mechanism of the TV tube itself, as witnessed by this video still. You didn't really give a satisfactory response as to whether you understood the principle here - namely, the size of the reflected glare does not have to equate to the size of the light source.

I found a web site showing 2580 pictures of lens flare caused by the Sun , and not one of them show a blue colored lens flare .

How many of these pictures were taken with lens with a single optical coating? If they're taken with modern lens they are likely to be multi-coated. See Craig's explanation and the link in his post for a fuller description. While you're doing that, here's a photo of the sun, taken from Earth, showing blue lens flare.

The frame grab from the Apollo 14 video , was obviously filmed at night .... Not only because of the blue lens flare but because of the extreme darkness of the footage .

Extreme darkness? I think you must be looking at something different to me. Do you have the link to the entire DAC clip, I couldn't see it on the ALSJ?

Cheers

Edited November 12, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Craig Lamson]

This video tape clearly shows two very important points which I have been discussing since the beginning of this thread ... The very SMALL size of the real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor , opposed to the too the large "Sun" reflections in the Apollo visors , and the appearance of the real Sun from the vacuum of space , which looks nothing like the "Sun" used for the Apollo photos .

Video bloom...we have been over and over this.

I found a web site showing 2580 pictures of lens flare caused by the Sun , and not one of them show a blue colored lens flare .

As far as I can see these are current images and most likely taken with multi-coated lenses, thus few blue lens flares. Single coated lenses are far and few between these days, I have 46 lenses in my collection, 1 uncoated and 45 multi-coated. I can't even test this currrently. In any case the claim is yours to prove with empirical evidence (real test photos).

The only picture containing blue lens flare was one caused by an artificial light source at night .

Sorry but you have no clue under what circumstances this photo was taken or even if the lens flares are real. Also, unless this image is fake (computer generated) the light is real, not artifical. There afe many types of real light. You need to define the what it is about this light that you believe is causing the effect you are claiming. Is it the color temp, light to subject distance etc and then you need to offer some empirical proof (your photographs) to back up your claim. Your word is useless.

]The frame grab from the Apollo 14 video , was obviously filmed at night .... Not only because of the blue lens flare but because of the extreme darkness of the footage .

Amazing...you are making a claim via a very poor quality YOU TUBE video! Also please inform us how you have eliminated orignal camera under- exposure as the cause of the 'darkness"

Edited November 13, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Thanks very much for posting Ed White's space walk in LOW EARTH ORBIT .

You're welcome. Is your capitalisation of "low earth orbit" meant to suggest that lens flares must by definition be radically different from lens flares as photographed on the moon? Bottom line is, it's film taken in space of the sun causing a blue lens flare - something which you were suggesting is indicative of a tungsten spotlight. I've shown clear evidence, taken using a similar media, from the same era, of sunlight causing lens flare in space to be blue - like the one you showed in your Apollo 14 clip. Given that you've used image taken in low earth orbit to challenge the authenticity of lunar photos, why do you have an issue with others whom you disagree with doing the same as you?

This video tape clearly shows two very important points which I have been discussing since the beginning of this thread ... The very SMALL size of the real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor , opposed to the too the large "Sun" reflections in the Apollo visors , and the appearance of the real Sun from the vacuum of space , which looks nothing like the "Sun" used for the Apollo photos .

I think you're changing the subject away from the subject at hand old bean, but not to worry. It was proven that size of the reflection of the sun in the visor on the TV footage is due to some kind of exposure artefact within the mechanism of the TV tube itself, as witnessed by this video still. You didn't really give a satisfactory response as to whether you understood the principle here - namely, the size of the reflected glare does not have to equate to the size of the light source.

I found a web site showing 2580 pictures of lens flare caused by the Sun , and not one of them show a blue colored lens flare .

How many of these pictures were taken with lens with a single optical coating? If they're taken with modern lens they are likely to be multi-coated. See Craig's explanation and the link in his post for a fuller description. While you're doing that, here's a photo of the sun, taken from Earth, showing blue lens flare.

The frame grab from the Apollo 14 video , was obviously filmed at night .... Not only because of the blue lens flare but because of the extreme darkness of the footage .

Extreme darkness? I think you must be looking at something different to me. Do you have the link to the entire DAC clip, I couldn't see it on the ALSJ?

Cheers

My putting caps on the words LOW EARTH ORBIT was to imply something else ... Like that's where the real space missions took place , opposed to the faked ones on the Apollo moon sets .

Even though you did manage to find one photo of the Sun causing a mostly blue colored flare , it's quite rare for the Sun to cause this ... Most blue lens flares are caused by artificial lights as in this photo ..

As for this statement made by Craig ,

"Amazing...you are making a claim via a very poor quality YOU TUBE video! Also please inform us how you have eliminated orignal camera under- exposure as the cause of the 'darkness ".

he obviously didn't do his homework on this one, because the Apollo 14 frame grab was NOT from a YouTube video ... It came from a DVD of the Apollo 14 mission just as nasa filmed it .... TOO DARK !

You said that you didn't think the frame grab still I posted here was too dark , so I grabbed a couple more stills from that DAC footage to show you just how dark it was and just how wrong you are .

As for my "changing the subject" by mentioning the too large size of the"'Sun" reflection in the Apollo photos , you're wrong again ... That IS the subject ... Or at least one of them .... and the video camera must be very fussy about its blooms because the Apollo 17 "Sun" looks bigger than the Apollo 16 "Sun".. I guess the difference in size must be where they positioned the spotlight on the moon sets .

As for the Apollo 14 DAC camera having a coated lens which could have caused the blue lens flare , do either one of you have any proof of that ? .. Or are you both just making stuff up as you go ? ... ANY "rebuttal" is better than NO "rebuttal" , right boys ?

And speaking of blue lens flares and darkness on the Apollo 14 moon set , check out this YouTube video ( that's right , this really is a U-T video ) of some very serious BLUE LIGHT ANOMALIES on the A14 set .

Ufo's on the Moon? - Apollo 14 ... ( Or blue stage lights ? )

Edited November 13, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Here's Jack's new study .

It looks like the real Sun and the Apollo "Sun" don't have a whole lot in common .... I wonder why that might be ?

[Evan Burton]

I don't think that is DAC footage. I'll have to check, but I had always thought the DAC was normally left mounted inside the LM, pointing out a window. Those shots are too low an angle for that.

Let me get back to people on that one.

The bottom image is labeled "AS14-71-19509" but that must be incorrect. Magazine 71 carried aboard Apollo 14 was a B&W magazine, used on the way back to Earth. I don't have a listing of 16mm DAC footage, but I don't recall them giving them individual frame numbers. Duane, could you confirm the number?

[Evan Burton]

Ah, I've checked and I'm incorrect. There were three DACs on Apollo 14 - one inside the CM, one inside the LM, and the other was mounted on the MET (a cart) used on the lunar surface. The DAC is a 16mm Maurer film camera, and looks like it was fitted with a 5mm lens.

[Duane Daman]

Here are three more Apollo 14 DAC frame grabs , all showing the blue lens flare created by artificial lighting .

[Kevin M. West]

You've already been shown that blue flare happens in sunlit photos also.