One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Craig Lamson]

Craig - I understand you are frustrated, but if a Forum member does not understand a concept you are putting forward, please say something like "I cannot help you understand the the concept here" or similar. Please do NOT associate any lack of understanding (if that is the case) with being stupid or "lack of smarts". Well educated people often do not understand concepts in another field.

First & final warning regarding this.

My suggestion would be to take the concept from first principles, the lead them through it step-by-step. If a stage is not understood or disputed, you can spend more time on it or use further examples. Perhaps photographic sites elsewhere might have some good explanations of the concept.

Ignorance is ignorance, pure and simple. Do what you will, I'm going to tell it like it is.

[Gavin Stone]

Duane, I think what this stems from is a lack of understanding. You will not hear anyone arguing with you about your point. It is a physical impossibility for a mountain to get bigger the further away you get from it, when using either your eye or a camera with the same lens for both pictures; it's as simple as that. What we are talking about here when we're taking about size, is actually the angular size of an object. This can be worked out quite easily. But first a quick lesson in angular sizes.

As I hope this diagram illustrates, imagine C to D is the height of the South Massif, which infact is 2300 metres. The distance from eye to mountain is 8000 metres (These are actually the real sizes, the Lunar module was roughly 8km from the base of the South Massif, and the South Massif is actually 2300 metres high).

There is a simple way to calculate angular size:

Angular size in degrees = (size * 57.29) / distance *

If you plug the numbers into the equation, we get:

Angular size in degrees = (2300*57.29) / 8000

Angular size in degrees = (131767) / 8000

Angular size in degrees = 16.47 (to two decimal places)

So we know that the angular size of the South Massif is 16.47. Now then, what happens if we stand one hundred metres away from the LM?

Angular size in degrees = (2300*57.29) / 8100

Angular size in degrees = (131767) / 8100

Angular size in degrees = 16.27 (to two decimal places)

Notice that the result is only a fraction smaller? This is because the size is so big. Now lets calculate this for the Lunar Module. The Lunar module is 6.37 metres high and I will calculate what its angular size is from ten metres away.

Angular size in degrees = (6.37*57.29) / 10

Angular size in degrees = (364.9373) / 10

Angular size in degrees = 36.49 degrees (to the nearest two decimal places)

Notice that the LM is a massive angular size, it takes up over twice the angular size of the South Massif. Now for the final calculation. What happens when you are stood 100 metres away from the Lunar Module.

Angular size in degrees = (6.37*57.29) / 100

Angular size in degrees = (364.9373) / 100

Angular size in degrees = 3.65 degrees (to the nearest two decimal places)

Notice how the Lunar module has had a massive reduction in it's angular size? This is because it's so small. As distance increases, it is a mathematical impossibility for the angular size to get bigger, this is why the same mountain always has to be smaller when viewed from a further distance away.

Now let me bring these pictures into it. You are claiming that there is evidence of a mountain getting bigger with a photo taken from further away. This is an impossibility. We all agree with this. The reason that the evidence you are providing is flawed, is because Jack has taken the pictures out of proportions. He has scaled them up and then cropped them, and THEN compared the angular size. This is why the fidicals are burnt in to the lens, so it's possible to work out sizes etc etc. The second you start scaling an image, you can no longer rely on it for a size comparison; and this is what Jack has done. I hope you understand now. If you still don't believe give me the two Apollo reference numbers of situations where this is happening (please don't use Jacks reference on his study as they are wrong).

*tan (angle) = opposite/adjacent = Line CD/ Line AD = size/distance

Since this works for small angles, let us take the tangent of 1 degree which is .017455 which means that when an object's size is .017455 times its distance, it has an angular size of 1 degree. Reworded: When an object's distance is 57.29 times its size, it has an angular size of 1 degree.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Gavin Stone

[Jack White]

Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos .... This should be intreresting .... I tried to read your old post about this but the links are no longer working .

The link is working for me; have another go when you get time.

The demonstration photograph is one that you yourself should undertake. We can explain how to set up the shot (so you can see that it is similar to the lunar images), and you'll see the results for yourself. The one thing you have to understand is that the mountains do not 'appear larger'; the object in the foreground appears smaller or larger (depending on where the object was in relation to the photographer and the amount of zoom used). If you scale the images so the foreground objects are the same size, then the background objects are going to get bigger or smaller (depending on which image is scaled).

The next study you show is also one of Jack's that I answered 18 months ago here. When you are close to an object (e.g. the LM), its apparent size in relation to a distant background object (e.g. mountains) is much greater than when you are further away from the object (LM) and compare its apparent size to a distant background object (mountains). See the Clavius website for a more detailed explanation.

Here is a diagramme I drew up for that post. It explains why some things will appear bigger or smaller against a background, as you move toward or away from the object.

Now, in the above explanation, if we were to scale the black X so they are both the same size then the red background in the 'B' example (i.e. the mountain) would appear to be much larger... but you know it is not. It is an effect of the scaling.

This diagram is irrelevant. Distance from camera to LM is estimated in YARDS,

Distance from camera to LM is estimated in MILES! Therefore the diagram does

not represent the topic being discussed and shows a lack of understanding of the

topic.

Jack

PS...same applies to Stone's diagram on subsequent posting.

[Gavin Stone]

Jack, what are you on about?

As long as you keep the units the same for size and distance, it's fine when calculating angular size.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Gavin Stone

[Dave Greer]

Duane, I think what this stems from is a lack of understanding. You will not hear anyone arguing with you about your point. It is a physical impossibility for a mountain to get bigger the further away you get from it, when using either your eye or a camera with the same lens for both pictures; it's as simple as that. What we are talking about here when we're taking about size, is actually the angular size of an object. This can be worked out quite easily. But first a quick lesson in angular sizes.

<snip>

Very good primer on angular sizes there Gav.

In the interests of accuracy I'll play Mr Nitpicky.

Notice how the Lunar module has had a massive reduction in it's angular size? This is because it's so small.

I think it's more correct to say it's because the change in distance (from camera to the LM) between photos is a large proportion of the original distance from the LM - 10m to 100m. Tenfold increase in distance will lead to a correspondingly large decrease in the LMs angular size, regardless of the height of the LM.

This is why the fidicals are burnt in to the lens, so it's possible to work out sizes

Strictly speaking they were etched onto a reseau plate which was mounted inside the body of the camera, just in front of the film. They do indeed allow a scientific analysis and measurement of distances on the photographs - a process called photogrammetry I believe.

Hopefully Duane will read and absorb your primer.

[Gavin Stone]

I think it's more correct to say it's because the change in distance (from camera to the LM) between photos is a large proportion of the original distance from the LM - 10m to 100m. Tenfold increase in distance will lead to a correspondingly large decrease in the LMs angular size, regardless of the height of the LM.

Indeed - you are correct. This is what I meant If I was to increase the distance from the mountain by a factor of 10, it would have the same Angular difference as the Lunar module; I see where you're coming from, I was just using the 100 metres as a constant to show with those kind of distances, the angular difference between the LM and mountains is huge

Strictly speaking they were etched onto a reseau plate which was mounted inside the body of the camera, just in front of the film. They do indeed allow a scientific analysis and measurement of distances on the photographs - a process called photogrammetry I believe.

Hehe indeed, I only just remembered I knew that after I read your post. I'm not very knowledgeable in photography (one of my holes in Apollo knowledge is the hasselblad and its operation(something I will remedy with time)) which is why I'm glad we have Photography experts like you here

EDITED: Beginners mistake!

Edited December 21, 2007 by Gavin Stone

[Dave Greer]

I think it's more correct to say it's because the change in distance (from camera to the LM) between photos is a large proportion of the original distance from the LM - 10m to 100m. Tenfold increase in distance will lead to a correspondingly large decrease in the LMs angular size, regardless of the height of the LM.

Indeed - you are correct. This is what I meant If I was to increase the distance from the mountain by a factor of 10, it would have the same Angular difference as the Lunar module; I see where you're coming from, I was just using the 100 metres as a constant to show with those kind of distances, the angular difference between the LM and mountains is huge

Quite right.

Hehe indeed, I only just remembered I knew that after I read your post. I'm not very knowledgeable in photography (one of my holes in Apollo knowledge is the hasselblad and its operation(something I will remedy with time)) which is why I'm glad we have Photography experts like you here

EDITED: Beginners mistake!

Oh gosh, I'm FAR from a photography expert. But like yourself and most people, I do have the capacity to increase my understanding of a topic I previously new little about. The interesting thing is, this is something that is completely independent of Apollo - people can prove photographic and perspective/parallax concepts to themselves with simple experimentation. No need to accept anyone's word on blind faith. Like I've said time and time again, all you need is a cheap camera and some gumption. Cameras seem plentiful these days, so I can only conclude it's the gumption that's running a little dry in some quarters!

[Craig Lamson]

Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos .... This should be intreresting .... I tried to read your old post about this but the links are no longer working .

The link is working for me; have another go when you get time.

The demonstration photograph is one that you yourself should undertake. We can explain how to set up the shot (so you can see that it is similar to the lunar images), and you'll see the results for yourself. The one thing you have to understand is that the mountains do not 'appear larger'; the object in the foreground appears smaller or larger (depending on where the object was in relation to the photographer and the amount of zoom used). If you scale the images so the foreground objects are the same size, then the background objects are going to get bigger or smaller (depending on which image is scaled).

The next study you show is also one of Jack's that I answered 18 months ago here. When you are close to an object (e.g. the LM), its apparent size in relation to a distant background object (e.g. mountains) is much greater than when you are further away from the object (LM) and compare its apparent size to a distant background object (mountains). See the Clavius website for a more detailed explanation.

Here is a diagramme I drew up for that post. It explains why some things will appear bigger or smaller against a background, as you move toward or away from the object.

Now, in the above explanation, if we were to scale the black X so they are both the same size then the red background in the 'B' example (i.e. the mountain) would appear to be much larger... but you know it is not. It is an effect of the scaling.

This diagram is irrelevant. Distance from camera to LM is estimated in YARDS,

Distance from camera to LM is estimated in MILES! Therefore the diagram does

not represent the topic being discussed and shows a lack of understanding of the

topic.

Jack

PS...same applies to Stone's diagram on subsequent posting.

Sadly Jck once again you are wrong. The only people showing a lack of understanding are you...and Duane. Duane can be forgiven due to his lack of expertise. You on the other hand proclaim yourself to have photographic expertise and yet you fail again and again to understand even the most basic of principals. Shame on you for leading impressionable minds astray with your ignorance of the subject matter.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

This diagram is irrelevant. Distance from camera to LM is estimated in YARDS, Distance from camera to LM is estimated in MILES! Therefore the diagram does not represent the topic being discussed and shows a lack of understanding of the topic.

Jack

PS...same applies to Stone's diagram on subsequent posting.

Jack... my diagramme doesn't use any units of length. It is purely a visual diagramme which shows how an object will appear. It is correct, and relevant because it is exactly the mistake you are making. If you can't understand that, I don't know where to start. Perhaps ask one of the teachers from the Mathematics or Science forums to check the diagramme. That will confirm the basic premise. Then ask if the same effect is taking place in the images.

I know you won't like the answer.

[Evan Burton]

Duane (and Jack),

When you have a few moments spare, have a read of this site.

Here is the pertinent extract (but there is a lot of good material in there):

Changing camera-to-subject distance does change perspective as shown here. As the camera is moved closer to the foreground subject (bottom), the subject appears to increase in size relative to the background. This changing relationship between the size of objects in the foreground and background creates the difference in perspective.

This is exactly what I am demonstrating in my diagramme.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Evan Burton
Added final comment after images

[Evan Burton]

Now, forget those other objects in the background (gazebo, tree). Just concentrate on the monument and the tombstone.

If I scaled the tombstone in the top image to be the same size as the tombstone in the bottom image, the monument in the (scaled) top image would be enormous!

Does that make things any clearer?

[Dave Greer]

Here's a GIF I created from several photos of the same scene, taken at increasing distances, with increasing focal lengths. No, the house isn't getting bigger! If you understand this, you should be able to understand the compressed perspective in the Apollo 17 500mm photos - i.e. why the mountains look "huge".

[Duane Daman]

Evan , Dave and Gavin ... Thanks for all the diagrams , articles and explainations about perspective and the effects of different size lenses on the size of background objects ... The GIF of the "growing" house with the car in the foreground does explain why the "mountains" grew to such enormous proportions using a 500mm lens , I guess .

Not being a photographer I was thinking that the camera "sees" what the eye sees , but that is obviously not the case and does explain why the perspective looks so strangely backwards in some of the Apollo photos .

Ignornace is ignorance, pure and simple.

Yes , I guess it is ... and rudeness is rudeness , pure and simple ... But then that's what you always do best on these forums Lamson .

Here's a little present for all of you for being so helpful in explaining "Photography 101" to this " ignorant conspiracy nut".... I hope you enjoy my buddy's new video called ...

Moon Hoax- Moonsets Are Forever

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og

Merry Christmas everybody !

[Evan Burton]

Merry Xmas, Duane, and hoping you have a safe & prosperous New Year.

You are not the first to be fooled, and you won't be the last. Through my reading I have discovered that many photographers have also been taken in by this, the difference between what WE see and what the CAMERA sees.

A lot of this is counter-intuitive; often the only way to be convinced is to do the experiment yourself and see the results for yourself.

Anyway - cheers & beers!

[Evan Burton]

I've contacted a group of recognised Photoshop professionals, and have asked them to review Jack's work.

I'll see if anyone decides to do so in the next few days, although I would imagine Xmas will make the time a lot longer. Perhaps by mid-JAN 08 I will have a report (if someone decides to accede to my request).