Brad Guth wrote:

wrote:
Then of course, shooting film on the moon has to be much like shooting
in daylight.

No stars in daylight.

No stars visible in most film taken on the moon for much the same
reason.

You're saying "for much the same reason" as pertaining to exactly what?

Are you now down to the absolute last ditch dregs of trying to impress
folks at the LeapFrog level of kindergarten?

As per your continual infomercial-science basis of your naysay
buttology mindset as having been based entirely upon those NASA/Apollo
conditional laws of physics, as your brown-nose worth of typical denial
is still stuck in the mainstream status quo of auto-denial mode, just
like that buttology mindset of your good buddy and partner in crimes
against humanity, GW Bush.

Obviously you're going to be another one of those diehard e-spook or
e-mole folks that's going to have to remain as rejecting upon all
science regardless of wherever it comes from (even if it's Kodak's
physics of photons and of whatever's pertaining to their film of
absolutely hard-science that's 100+% replicated isn't good enough, is
it?), the same goes as for no matters how much WW-III takes as another
bite out of humanity and contributes to whatever's left of our global
warming fiasco, you're sticking to your perpetrated cold-war guns.
That's my good boy!

Obviously you've intentionally overlooked that little tricky part of
f32 that was involved with obtaining that terrestrial image of our moon
and Spica, that if having been obtained external to Earth's atmosphere
you'd have to cut that same exposure by a least half again, thus we're
talking at most 1/4 second at f32, and of course Spica being of such
far-blue, violet and of the near-UV primary spectrum would have to be
at the very least twice again as bright. Gee whiz, folks, I wonder
what using f4 might otherwise do to the 100 ASA film shutter speed?

Could that become 125th of a second at f4?

Actually that previous example image using 100 ASA/ISO/DIN slide film
was more than likely closer to being exposed as an f48 at 1/2 second,
as due to the optical losses that may have been unavoidably imposing
another half f-stop in addition to whatever the 3X tele-extender
application itself represented, which by the way should also have
further contributed to having attenuated the UV-a.

Could it be that you folks know absolutely nothing about cameras, lens,
filters and much less about film?

I can only further surmise that you're having Muslim for dinner, and
not as any guest.

I, however, can only further surmise that you're an idiot, Brad.
-
Brad Guth


--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Get a rope! Say did you see on the National news about a
'Cross burning' in Arkansas? The black guy was scared
****less."
-- "Honest" John the crackah without a brain