/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13218424

734KiB, 2340x2350, AS17-143-21931HR.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 31 May 21:43:43 2021 No.13218424 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13218440 >>13218449 >>13218469 >>13219604 >>13220020 >>13221409

Why did the Apollo missions bring black and white film to the moon? Roughly half of all the photos of the surface from the missions after 11 are in black and white. Why? It's annoying since they obviously had perfectly good color film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:47:38 No.13218440 Report

Quoted By: >>13218452

>>13218424
Obviously there's no color on the moon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:49:27 No.13218449 Report

Quoted By: >>13218459

>>13218424
I'd like to be able to say that someone, somewhere was based and understood the aesthetic importance of taking good B/W photography, but I doubt it. Fortunately the B/W photography they did get is kino and has the added bonus of annoying plebs like you.

IIRC no one thought to equip John Glenn with any sort of a camera on Friendship 7, so he brought along a little store-bought thing of his own.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:50:32 No.13218452 Report

Quoted By: >>13218457

>>13218440

>he doesn't know what color the soil was that Apollo 17 found

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:51:58 No.13218457 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218452
Nobody did until they brought it on Earth where there's color

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:52:31 No.13218459 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218449
The plebs are the people who decided every photo from the surface of the damn moon shouldn't be as close to human sight as physically possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:56:05 No.13218469 Report

Quoted By: >>13218471

>>13218424
I'd assume B/W film technology at the time was markedly more reliable for use in the harsh environment of space. Perhaps the coloured film pigments would undergo photobleaching under the intense solar radiation in vacuum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:57:04 No.13218471 Report

Quoted By: >>13218479 >>13218501

>>13218469
Except for the fact that they took color photos from space ever since the Mercury program so they would've already known nothing you said is true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 21:59:44 No.13218479 Report

Quoted By: >>13218483 >>13218486

Likely because there was an extra engineering challenge associated with color film and BW was deemed sufficient. It's not even like there's anything colorful to look at on the moon anyway.
>it's annoying
If you're autistic, maybe. You barely notice it desu.
>>13218471
Not sure what this is supposed to prove

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:01:02 No.13218483 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218479
>Not sure what this is supposed to prove
Obviously what every discussion about moon landing leads to - that it's fake

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:02:44 No.13218486 Report

Quoted By: >>13218515

>>13218479
It's supposed to prove the fact that NASA already knew color film does not undergo any sort of photobleaching.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:06:22 No.13218501 Report

Quoted By: >>13218514 >>13218516

>>13218471
Well I just googled it..
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollocolor.html
> [...] all color film shot on the moon was made for an Earth-based chromatic spectrum of light, not that of a vacuum -- the film 'saw' color differently in space than it would on Earth. The colors that it recorded are thus not to be trusted in the same way that we trust color film on Earth. You are perhaps familiar with the fact that many scientists argued for not even taking color film to the moon, citing spectral inaccuracy and the fact that it has less acutance (sharpness) than black and white film, as well as a narrower latitude, or range of capturing relative brightness and dimness. It did, however, have great public-relations value ....

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:08:42 No.13218514 Report

Quoted By: >>13218516 >>13218538

>>13218501
That's weird since the colors of comparable things like the US flag and the NASA logo were essentially perfect still

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:08:47 No.13218515 Report

Quoted By: >>13218568 >>13218587

>>13218486
Take a good look at those Mercury photos again. They are grainy as shit compared to the Apollo photos. This isn't even NASAs fault, very high quality BW film stock is easier to come by than than very high color stock, in general. This is common knowledge among film photographers.

Hence the reason to shoot BW on a nearly colorless satellite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:09:54 No.13218516 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218501
He's literally just describing white balance
>>13218514
Yeah. The white balance is strange, though.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO LS-155b-600w.gif, 19KiB, 600x364

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:15:01 No.13218538 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218514
Make your own judgement from the spectra in the pic, but in my opinion, the discrepancies would be significant enough only for scientific purposes.
Also apart from the generally lower irradiance, the profile of the visible spectrum remains relatively similar for vacuum and after atmospheric attenuation imo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:23:21 No.13218568 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218515
This is also a big reason. Many, if not most, of the pictures taken by the Curiosity and Perserverence rovers, along with space probes like Juno and Cassini, are in black and white because it's much higher in resolution.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Lawrence of Arabia (1).png, 3MiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Mon 31 May 2021 22:27:06 No.13218587 Report

Quoted By: >>13219583 >>13219620 >>13220276 >>13221203

>>13218515
>easier to come by
They were fucking NASA. Surely they would have been able to acquire the best of the best. Lawrence of Arabia still holds up today because of the 70mm film. It's not like it's some super secret technology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 04:26:41 No.13219583 Report

Quoted By: >>13219617

>>13218587
all of the people in this thread making commentary about film photography are relying on their lack of experience and knowledge using film cameras to make their poor drawn, dunning krueger conjectures seem authoritative even though the basis of those conjectures is ignorance and lack of experience.
its a safe enough bet that nobody else reading the board has much experience & knowledge with the 20th century alchemy behind film photography so the plebs can pontificate away without risking being called out for being babbling idiots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 04:34:20 No.13219604 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218424
Black and white film was better then color film definitely for shit you would want to bring into space. Sharper more contrast. Moon is also not that colorful so not sure why you would want to bring a color camera anyways other then to take pictures of the shit you bring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 04:38:50 No.13219617 Report

Quoted By:

>>13219583
cope
I don't even know why someone would need to cope over this, yet here's someone coping

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 04:39:54 No.13219620 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218587
What part do you disagree with?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 06:42:58 No.13220020 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218424
Space probes to this day still have black and white digital cameras with rotating color filters for better resolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 08:08:35 No.13220276 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218587
I wouldn't say easier to come by
in 60's the colored film technology wasn't able to give as high resolution photos
even the best of the best was still crappy and grainy compared to silver nitrate films
there's a reason why photography snobs preferred it for a long time

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 13:39:02 No.13221203 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218587
>Lawrence of Arabia still holds up today because of the 70mm film.
Nah. 35mm is good enough, they used liw ISO films with fine grain, so 35mm looks perfectly well. It's the early digital low res stuff mostly made for TV that is unrecoverably bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Jun 2021 14:32:10 No.13221409 Report

Quoted By:

>>13218424
that guy in the background taking a piss thinking he’s out of sight what an obvious fake

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches