apollo photos diseceted

Tibbz2 · 27 Oct 2011 at 16:18

Azza said:
I got myself one of the ole Vanilla flavour ones, forgot how good they were!

Haven't had one of those for ages!

Metalface Mark · 27 Oct 2011 at 16:22

dmpoole said:
I'm pretty sure that LabR@t isn't like Magick or others on here and I believe if we give him an excellent reply he'll go away thinking about it and hopefully see what's going on in the film he posted and this is why CT threads should continue and we hopefully convert people into not being idiots.

So LabR@t:

The pictures being manipulated are very poor copies of the originals and you can take any JPG, manipulate it with filters and find all kinds of blocks on it.

Now I need a question answered from the experts:

If I was to 'paint' over a part of a picture (eg turned somebody's head into a black block) and saved it & posted it here, with manipulation software could you get to see the original image underneath?
Or in other words, can anybody tell me what this was under the black? -

You sick puppy dimple, on a family forum too!

SexyGreyFox · 27 Oct 2011 at 18:38

Metalface Mark said:
You sick puppy dimple, on a family forum too!

anything I don't mind · 27 Oct 2011 at 19:31

by the time we ever do get to the moon the quality of the footage will be astounding. it will be about so far beyond our HD 1080p that it will make these nasa frauds look amateur.

Tefal · 27 Oct 2011 at 19:35

groen said:
by the time we ever do get to the moon the quality of the footage will be astounding. it will be about so far beyond our HD 1080p that it will make these nasa frauds look amateur.

so Celluloid?

icecold · 27 Oct 2011 at 19:49

groen said:
by the time we ever do get to the moon the quality of the footage will be astounding. it will be about so far beyond our HD 1080p that it will make these nasa frauds look amateur.

Amazing

Radiation · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:00

I still want to know why they never show true colour images of mars, it's either tinted lander images or computer generated satellite ones, hmm...

SexyGreyFox · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:08

Radiation said:
I still want to know why they never show true colour images of mars, it's either tinted lander images or computer generated satellite ones, hmm...

What is your theory on it?

Flibster · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:09

Cuckoo!

Radiation · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:11

dmpoole said:
What is your theory on it?

They're up to no good!

Werewolf · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:21

Radiation said:
I still want to know why they never show true colour images of mars, it's either tinted lander images or computer generated satellite ones, hmm...

Isn't it because most of the cameras used are B&W for various reasons (you can get 3x the resolution for the same space, weight and bandwidth and resolution/weight are more important than colour)

IIRC the reason they tint them has been stated in the past that's it's due to the public perception (when they use red), and for clarity reasons most of the rest of the time.

badcompany · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:22

lol this thread is still active.

SteveOBHave · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:27

Werewolf said:
Isn't it because most of the cameras used are B&W for various reasons (you can get 3x the resolution for the same space, weight and bandwidth and resolution/weight are more important than colour)

IIRC the reason they tint them has been stated in the past that's it's due to the public perception (when they use red), and for clarity reasons most of the rest of the time.

The most recent mars photos have been coloured using a reference swatch on the probe so the colours they are reproducing are actually pretty much true to life.

http://areo.info/mer/

SexyGreyFox · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:44

badcompany said:
lol this thread is still active.

Why shouldn't it be?

Werewolf has just come out with some info I never knew.

[FnG]magnolia · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:47

groen said:
by the time we ever do get to the moon the quality of the footage will be astounding. it will be about so far beyond our HD 1080p that it will make these nasa frauds look amateur.

You are the best poster and this is the best post

Heliospherez · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:52

Tefal said:
so Celluloid?

No - unfortunately that would be affected by radiation again - so we would have another 50 years of people saying the Moon landings were faked again (only with better fakes/CGI and shopping)

In fact - I think if NASA wanted to fake a moon landing now - the CGI would be that good we would all be thinking it was real anyway

PermaBanned · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:52

Radiation said:
I still want to know why they never show true colour images of mars, it's either tinted lander images or computer generated satellite ones, hmm...

Ever seen Mars through a telescope?

Tefal · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:52

Heliospherez said:
No

resolution wise though it's far beyond 1080p

PermaBanned · 27 Oct 2011 at 20:55

Heliospherez said:
No - unfortunately that would be affected by radiation again - so we would have another 50 years of people saying the Moon landings were faked again (only with better fakes/CGI and shopping)

In fact - I think if NASA wanted to fake a moon landing now - the CGI would be that good we would all be thinking it was real anyway

Lower resolution digital sensors are also effected by radiation, it's just that once they are you're pretty much ****ed

LoGaN_TnT · 27 Oct 2011 at 21:48

Concorde fastest passenger plane First flight 2 March 1969 it still is the fastest passenger plane. Mach 2.02

SR 71 fastest manned plane First flight 22 December 1964 still is the fastest manned plane. Mach 3.2

Apollo 11 1969. 24545mph

So when people say we did not have the technology then it is BS they obviously did. On top of that America had pretty much unlimited funding and the fact they were in a space race with Russia.