Not even trying to make it look good. Everything they tell you is a lie.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
Look, I believe in the mainstream stuff about space and even I thought this livestream looked bad. No high-res closeup video of the moon, just blurry wide angle shots. I'm hoping they recorded the back side of the moon when the capsule was only 80 miles away from the surface.
I've noticed that these pictures are strange for digital cameras. The capsule (foreground) looks really high res, but the moon (background) looks really fuzzy and low res. It's as if they're trying to emulate old school film camera lenses with perspective shots like you see in movies, where the background is out of focus.
If you've ever listened to commentaries for TV shows around the time that HD digital cameras started being used (early and mid 2000s), you'll often hear the directors and producers lament the limitations of those HD cameras, that they couldn't emulate film cameras precisely (at the time), and that they made things appear unnatural, because everything, foreground and background, were all in perfect focus. We've had digital cameras for over 15 years which can focus everything in shot.
How a multi billion dollar government org can't manage to attach a 15 year old camera to a flying tin can strains credulity. The moon in these pics looks incredibly fake.
Yeah I agree. There may be an explanation for it that's not obvious to the average person without knowledge of the limitations of modern cameras. NASA tends to use older technology that they have hardened against radiation rather than the latest and greatest. Still, the moon image was blurry and full of compression artifacts while the Orion craft was crisp. Could be that the craft was perfectly still relative to the camera while the moon was not and the antialiasing software couldn't handle it. I just don't know enough about digital cameras to come up with a theory.
If the blurriness of the moon was due to movement, then the solution would be really simple, to tilt or pan the camera to keep the moon focused while taking pictures, which is perfectly within the realm of our capabilities. The entire purpose of that camera is to take pictures of the moon. If we wanted clear crisp pictures of the side of the satellite, we could've just left it on the ground, hired a mildly competent photographer, and saved millions upon millions of dollars. Again, it strains credulity.
I also don't buy that explanation. Even though space travel is fast, the satellite's altitude above the moon would make the moon's apparent movement appear far slower, relatively speaking, and the shutter speed of the camera would be insanely quick, relatively speaking, given the brightness of the moon that close, which means those pictures should barely be blurry, if at all.
This is supported by pictures other satellites have taken of other moons and planets (including earth), which were travelling far faster, and using older cameras. The fastest consumer level digital cameras have shutter speeds of 1/8000th (of a second). According to the photography websites I read, people can use "slower" shutter speeds of 1/200th to produce pictures without blur. If motion blur made the moon that blurry in these images, then satellites orbiting earth wouldn't be able to take clear high res pictures of earth, and yet they can. This is, of course, assuming all the other satellite images are real.