U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2018, 04:34 AM
 
Location: PRC
3,236 posts, read 3,361,904 times
Reputation: 2950

Advertisements

Link to quote here
Quote:
Many of the scans of photos taken during the missions were done from the original film. These scans are being done by NASA Johnson, with some post-processing by Kipp Teague. The film is scanned at 4096 x 4096 pixels per image. (See a discussion from Arizona State University about the scanning process.) Kipp reduced each digital image to approximately 2350 x 2350 pixels (equivalent to 300 dpi) and did minor adjustments of levels to ensure that (1) brightly lit areas of lunar soil were neutral grey, (2) objects with known colors (such as the CDR stripes or the LCRU blankets) looked right, and (3) information in bright or dark areas was not lost. These images from original film are indicated by the notation 'OF300' in the image description. In each case, a 900 x 900 pixel version is also provided.
To see what I mean about the file sizes see the ones in the table - hundreds of Mb. Are these the scanned negative sizes or the scanned print sizes ?

Link to image here

Last edited by ocpaul20; 09-08-2018 at 04:48 AM..

 
Old 09-08-2018, 01:59 PM
 
33,744 posts, read 17,290,860 times
Reputation: 18513
ocpaul20, seems to me you're answering your own question. The ASU link provided (excellent resource, thanks!) tells you the process (scan from original film rolls), the resolution and gives you access to the images. A 70mm negative scanned in 12,800 x 12,800 seems very high-res to me. Can you verbalize why it's insufficient?

As for your expectation of file size, most images delivered over the Internet are compressed, so not sure why you think you can use that as a metric. You can go download the TIFF files (and those are huge - hundreds of megabytes) if that's what you're looking for. Click on "Raw Original" and I hope you have a good Internet connection.

Seriously, the imagery from Apollo has been pored over, catalogued, analyzed, folded spindled and mutilated by literally thousands of photo enthusiasts. For conspiracy purposes, that's not where I'd try to locate anything.

Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 09-08-2018 at 02:10 PM..
 
Old 09-08-2018, 03:06 PM
 
28,611 posts, read 40,594,929 times
Reputation: 37281
Never mind. Can't type today, lol.
 
Old 09-08-2018, 03:08 PM
 
28,611 posts, read 40,594,929 times
Reputation: 37281
Those of us who aren't wearing tin hats and underwear don't care because you insist on being right about something about which you are wrong. Why should we? Some of us know what happened. Some of us were alive when it happened, and watched it on television.

Some of us live in a foreign country (not the USA) and as far as I can tell are Hell-bent on trying to make the greatest country in the world (the USA) look bad.

Won't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
You forget maybe?

When you digitise a color or black-and-white print from a fine-grained format film, it does NOT end up as a few kilobytes. It ends up as a large file of many many hundreds of megabytes and sometimes gigabytes.

Where are the proper uncompressed Apollo images that science can use to examine the surface of the Moon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Glad you asked.

The index of all photos from the Apollo 11 mission:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.photidx.pdf

Lo-res and hi-res scans here:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html

Lovely, aren't they? Most people go for Magazine 40/S, it's pretty good stuff. Note how all the crappy photos - out of focus, tilted etc. - are there as well.

If you want something on chemical film or photo paper, you need to contact CRUSO - https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/about_cruso.html.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Here, read my post again because I think you missed the text in bold.


The link you gave is to a page with Apollo pictures on it, yes. However, very few are over 1Mb. The original print which was digitized would have to be a very small size for the result to be such a small file.
 
Old 09-08-2018, 08:14 PM
 
7,141 posts, read 3,904,178 times
Reputation: 6691
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Here, read my post again because I think you missed the text in bold.


The link you gave is to a page with Apollo pictures on it, yes. However, very few are over 1Mb. The original print which was digitized would have to be a very small size for the result to be such a small file.
Now you are accusing NASA of some sort of conspiracy in the compression algorithm? Why don’t you call NASA, go visit them and view the large format prints yourself? Anyone can be an armchair conspiracy theorist.
 
Old 09-08-2018, 08:54 PM
 
33,744 posts, read 17,290,860 times
Reputation: 18513
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68 View Post
Now you are accusing NASA of some sort of conspiracy in the compression algorithm? Why don’t you call NASA, go visit them and view the large format prints yourself? Anyone can be an armchair conspiracy theorist.
The funny bit is that the ALSJ link I gave has compressed images (.jpg), while ocpaul20 thoughtfully provided a link to ASU's repository of .tif images - TIFF being a lossless compression algorithm. A 12,800 x 12,800 pixel scan of a 70 mm negative is ridiculously high-resolution.

NASA is of course very careful with the original films, and rightly so. Most previous scans were of 2nd or 3rd generation copies. ASU's image library is extremely impressive, although I still like ALSJ's way of organizing content better.
 
Old 09-09-2018, 01:52 AM
 
Location: PRC
3,236 posts, read 3,361,904 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek
Some of us were alive when it happened, and watched it on television
If it was on TV at the time, then it must be true, eh? Yes, it was a good show wasn't it.

It may surprise you but I am one of those who think we did go to the Moon.

The points raised about the USA can be taken the same for any country these days. CD is mainly made up of US citizens and many discussions relate to domestic subjects, so of course, discussion will be centered on that country. It is as if you went to ChinaDaily forum and there you will find many posts which discuss conditions and news in China. I am sure there are similar forums in other countries too.

There is no reason to become defensive and angry, you and others have the choice to argue against the points raised. Do not pretend to be offended when there is nothing to be offended about, you can choose to be offended or not as you wish.

There are other countries which have sent rovers and spacecraft to the Moon, India, Japan, China all have published images which I suspect are not the best quality, which naturally are available only to the countries themselves. After all, the country has spent the money and in this capitalist world you want your people to have the benefit of that spend of their taxes.

Since this is part of the Science forum, someone should be able to tell me if I have understood this correctly. I am a little unclear whether they are digitising the negatives or a print but I suspect it is the negative. So, when they digitise a negative the pixels in the file should become larger before the image goes out of focus since the focus was set on infinity at the time of the photograph and the silver crystals are very small in that format film.

So, what I am saying is that the image should remain in focus, but the digitizing of the negative will cause the image to break up into pixels as the enlargement increases. Is that correct?
 
Old 09-09-2018, 12:01 PM
 
28,611 posts, read 40,594,929 times
Reputation: 37281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
If it was on TV at the time, then it must be true, eh? Yes, it was a good show wasn't it.

It may surprise you but I am one of those who think we did go to the Moon.

The points raised about the USA can be taken the same for any country these days. CD is mainly made up of US citizens and many discussions relate to domestic subjects, so of course, discussion will be centered on that country. It is as if you went to ChinaDaily forum and there you will find many posts which discuss conditions and news in China. I am sure there are similar forums in other countries too.

There is no reason to become defensive and angry, you and others have the choice to argue against the points raised. Do not pretend to be offended when there is nothing to be offended about, you can choose to be offended or not as you wish.

There are other countries which have sent rovers and spacecraft to the Moon, India, Japan, China all have published images which I suspect are not the best quality, which naturally are available only to the countries themselves. After all, the country has spent the money and in this capitalist world you want your people to have the benefit of that spend of their taxes.

Since this is part of the Science forum, someone should be able to tell me if I have understood this correctly. I am a little unclear whether they are digitising the negatives or a print but I suspect it is the negative. So, when they digitise a negative the pixels in the file should become larger before the image goes out of focus since the focus was set on infinity at the time of the photograph and the silver crystals are very small in that format film.

So, what I am saying is that the image should remain in focus, but the digitizing of the negative will cause the image to break up into pixels as the enlargement increases. Is that correct?
Not defensive. Not angry. Just commenting on the perception of your intent as shown by your posts. If anything I get some chuckles out of your repetition of the same thing over and over even after it has been explained to you numerous times.

I believe this is pertinent here:

This is paraphrased.

Winning an argument with a smart person is difficult
Winning an argument with a stupid person is extremely difficult
Winning an argument with a know-it-all is impossible

Always ignore them and move on. They will wither on the vine

Rochelle Safford
Secret of my Success
 
Old 09-09-2018, 12:17 PM
 
33,744 posts, read 17,290,860 times
Reputation: 18513
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Since this is part of the Science forum, someone should be able to tell me if I have understood this correctly. I am a little unclear whether they are digitising the negatives or a print but I suspect it is the negative.
Your own link describes the process in painstaking detail, down to the brand name and model of the scanner.

Quote:
So, what I am saying is that the image should remain in focus, but the digitizing of the negative will cause the image to break up into pixels as the enlargement increases. Is that correct?
You were drawing conclusions based on file size half a dozen posts ago, and now you're not sure what a pixel is? There is no enlargement. The negative (70x70mm) is broken down into a matrix of 12,800 x 12,800 pixels, each pixel is assigned a value that corresponds to it color. That's roughly 33,000 pixels per square millimeter.

Why don't you tell us where you're going with this? It's beginning to feel like deliberate obtuseness. (I was going to ask how focus got into it, but - never mind.)
 
Old 09-09-2018, 01:21 PM
 
28,611 posts, read 40,594,929 times
Reputation: 37281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Your own link describes the process in painstaking detail, down to the brand name and model of the scanner.



You were drawing conclusions based on file size half a dozen posts ago, and now you're not sure what a pixel is? There is no enlargement. The negative (70x70mm) is broken down into a matrix of 12,800 x 12,800 pixels, each pixel is assigned a value that corresponds to it color. That's roughly 33,000 pixels per square millimeter.

Why don't you tell us where you're going with this? It's beginning to feel like deliberate obtuseness. (I was going to ask how focus got into it, but - never mind.)
This thread, started by ocpaul20, has been dragging on since the end of November last year. The only way to end the discussion is to stop replying to the OP posts. You cannot answer enough questions in enough detail to thwart the incessant need he has. If you (ever) make him understand the digitizing process he will simply find another subject to argue about.

You are wasting your precious time and energy on a lost cause.

Give it up. Let the thread die.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top