Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos

[John Dolva]

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

Edited September 23, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

More of the same, here from the ''theatre of noise''

http://www.theatreof...r-size-and.html

''Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.''

edit formatting

Edited September 23, 2010 by John Dolva

[Duane Daman]

I guess spamming your pre emptive rebuttals excuses on two different threads will help your cause as well.

[Duane Daman]

The only problem I have with what you and your friends said though, is who am I to believe? .. A team of professional disinformationists or conspiracy researcher Jack White, his study showing a different color square surrounding a composited image of earth, or my own "lying" eyes?

Hmmmmmmm

Jack does not have the first clue about what he is doing, mickey mouse comes to mind. You don't have the first clue what it is you are seeing. Yet again mickey mouse comes to mind.

Then there is your problem of "believing". Perhaps you would be better served to actually EDUCATE yourself so you can move on to KNOWING.

Actually I do KNOW what the Apollo photography is.. It's FAKE.

I also KNOW what you are, though I'm not allowed to post that here.

Anyhoo, it's better to be like Mickey Mouse than ...

Edited September 24, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Photo of exploding sun!

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Actually I do KNOW what the Apollo photography is.. It's FAKE.

No you don't. You don't even know what it is you are looking at. You have PROVEN that time and time again. The BEST you have is BELIEF and that's meaningless in this context.

[Duane Daman]

Photo of exploding sun!

Jack

Jack,

Have no worries about the file number of the exploding Sun.. I bet West can locate it a nano second.

Never forget that all NASA Cyborgs are super human!

Edited September 23, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

A nano-second? No.

Two minutes? Yup. It's really not that hard if you're actually familiar with the material you're supposedly studying.

[John Dolva]

Lens flare?

[Kevin M. West]

Lens flare?

Obviously. Much better scans of that image are available by the way, as usual Jack uses the worst copy he can find.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg

[John Dolva]

Typical. This is getting tedious.

[Jack White]

Lens flare?

Never in the history of photography (perhaps an exaggeration?)

has there been a lens flare like that.

Show me one.

Jack

[John Dolva]

http://www.hq.nasa.g...4-66-9304HR.jpg

[Jack White]

Lens flare?

Obviously. Much better scans of that image are available by the way, as usual Jack uses the worst copy he can find.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg

So what is your point?

[Kevin M. West]

Lens flare?

Obviously. Much better scans of that image are available by the way, as usual Jack uses the worst copy he can find.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg

So what is your point?

Lens flare. What's YOUR point?