Apollo 11 Aldrin Descending the Ladder, did Mythbusters get it wrong?

[Chillybeef123]

It's funny, because people don't think of this logically. ANY PERSON who thinks it's a hoax, because there is a "magical fill light" needs to think in the mind of the would be prankster, assuming it would be a hoax. If you try to make a hoax of that scale, why the FUCK would you put a fill light? No one is that fucking stupid

[PencilStudios]

in the comparison the shadow is allmost the same... it just seems darker on the left bacause the fron of the astronaught is more lit up.. look at the image tho the right... the back of him still has a shadow

[Cougar139tweak]

Yeah, government can't get it right but still people believe this garbage. If they have suits that protect them from radioactivity take their ass to Pripyat and clean up chernobyl.

[davechucks]

Let me just clarify this exposure issue. As the cameras didn't have any light metering the settings were worked out before the mission, they didn't have any automatic exposure either therefore they had an F-stop setting for objects in shadow and an F-stop for objects in sunlight. Provided that the settings were used correctly the pictures would be evenly exposed. I read somewhere that there was some exposure bracketing used too but I would assume that NASA only show the best images.

[infinit888]

Firstly - Exposure time and secondly have you heard of such things called "optical illusions"? If we play with contrast and surrounding our eye can perceive certain surfaces to be brighter than others even though when measured they show the exact same colour/brightness.

[davechucks]

@infinit888 There you go being condesending again, 'have I heard of such things as optical illusions?'. Are you suggesting that the light reflected on the boots is an optical illusion. I don't really understand your issue about exposure settings either considering the camera being used and the way they were pre-set. I would think the exposure was consistent, as the shutter speeds and apeture settings were fixed. If your main defence is optical illusions then we can't really debate this can we.

[infinit888]

@davechucks No I suggest you look up something called the Checkershadow Illusions. Of course the exposure was not consistent. That's why the moons surface is of different brightness in the pictures (which you can clearly see when you juxtaposed the two images). It's also the reason why you don't see any stars in the pictures.

[davechucks]

@infinit888 but the difference in the images is my point. If they had both been taken on the moon with only the one light source then they should appear similar. You're suggesting it's an optical illusion, I'm providing evidence that the light sources are different, which is evident by the reflections on the heels of the boots. The exposure of the images appear different because the lighting setup is different, that's the point of the video.

[infinit888]

@davechucks No - I have a lot of pictures taken by an analog camera which depict the same motives but do absolutely NOT show the same brightness.

What's more likely. An elaborate conspiracy involving every astronomer, government physicist and astronaut plus the political leadership of several superpowers (all without any evidence whatsoever) and then they fuck up the lighting OR that they took two pictures with different exposure times to achieve better contrast in the pictures?

[davechucks]

@infinit888 So now you admit the lighting is fucked up? Before it was an illusion wasn't it? Make your mind up. And I never stated that they didn't go to the moon. Plus you're stating absolutes, 'every astronomer', every government physicist and every Astronaut, how do you know what everyone of these people thinks? The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Is it possible to Fake it, absolutely. Did they fake it, I don't know but they certainly manipulated some of the pictures.

[infinit888]

@davechucks Sigh... There are two interpretations - The fucked up lighting by two studio lamps being yours (which would be a stupid mistake to make) and the different exposure time being mine. You did not answer my question btw. I still maintain there is an illusion effect the absolute brightness of the grays is hard to discern without technological help. Possibility does not equal actuality. So what is more likely? We know what these people think because they have not spoken out.

[davechucks]

@infinit888 How does exposure time create reflections on Aldrin's boot heels? And there was no different exposure "Time" anyway because the shutter speed was pre-set and fixed. I really think you need to learn a bit more about camera terminology and then come back later. Or better still just agree to disagree.

[infinit888]

@davechucks Further from an photography standpoint it makes absolute sense that you would select a higher ISO value when taking a picture with a large shadow of the lunar lander and you needed more contrast for Aldrin. That's why the background is lighter. When the astronaut is directly exposed to sunlight you would choose a much lower ISO. Especially since the suit reflects a lot of light (more than the surface of the moon). This results in the background being darker.

[davechucks]

@infinit888 ISO is the film speed, it's not something they could change between shots like on a Digital Camera these days. I know you are trying really hard to be smart here and condesending at times too but I think you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole by demonstrating that you don't understand the technology they took to the moon, Neil Armstrong didn't have a Fuji Coolpix Digital Camera lol.

[infinit888]

@davechucks Both ISO (in digital cameras) and Exposure are measured in lux seconds (or luminous exposure so essentially there is no difference) but in the historical context sure exposure fits better. I however believe that you understood what I meant or do I need to reformulate my objection?

[davechucks]

@infinit888 As I said ISO is the film speed and could not have been selected between shots by the Astronauts as you suggested previously, especially as they only took one type of film for the camera. It's one thing my understanding your objection but I think we should be clear about the camera technology and also terminology.

[infinit888]

@davechucks That's not what I suggested. Call it ISO (in digital cameras) call it Exposure (in analog cameras) they can influence lux seconds. Yes I apologize we should be clear on the terminology to avoid unnecessary confusion however more importantly do you understand the point I'm making and do you have any contention with it other than semantics?

[davechucks]

@infinit888 actually you did suggest it quote 'it makes absolute sense that you would select a higher ISO value'. You still don't get this. ISO in Digital Cameras is not the samething as setting Exposure in an Analog camera. Exposure is how much light hits the film or sensor, ISO is a measure of sensitivity to light. I understand your point but I don't agree with it. I hope that clarifies things.

[infinit888]

@davechucks Perhaps you could point out why you don't agree? That might help me.

[davechucks]

@infinit888 I explained earlier, the reflections on the boot heels suggest another light source.

[infinit888]

@davechucks That is a possible explanation but how can you know if it's the moon surface scattering light, the earth or whatever it is you propose?

[davechucks]

@infinit888 Mythbusters need to do the test again and reproduce those reflections too, just using what was up on the moon.

[N0TYALC]

@davechucks logic states that if there were 2 light sources, there would also be 2 SHADOWS... soo explain that pl0x

[davechucks]

@N0TYALC Fill lighting you'd assume. The reflections on the boot heels are certainly there.