wrote:
38 From: Brad Guth - view profile
Date: Sun, Jul 9 2006 6:06 pm
Email: "Brad Guth"
Groups: sci.astro.amateur, sci.astro, sci.space.history,
rec.models.rockets, sci.math
Rating: (1 user)
show options

By way of cutting your exposure to the absolute minimums will drag
whatever camera DR down to the baasement, whereas you can even
eliminate most of a full moon while otherwise getting a sufficiently
good enough local/foreground image of ISS, or that of the Shuttle, of
good old mother Earth below and of course including any of those white
spacesuits. You can accomplish this basic task with a conventional
film camera, or easier with a $100 CCD camera, or with that of a
$1,000,000 CCD camera, you pick the camera and shoot. Running whatever

through a given PhotoShop level of automatic moderation also will get
you pretty much whatever you'd like, by way of the program easily
excluding pre-selected items. Some of the fancy cameras can have this
feature built right in, and even end-user modifiable in order to suit
each and every given client or application.


Ok, I got you to give me an answer and no, I am not going postal, you
posted your answer after my previous post as shown above.

Why then, would they (NASA) want to, or have to, cut their exposure ( I
assume here that you mean "Shutter Speed" even though they use CCD
cameras in a video mode ) to the absolute minimums ??
Why would they do this on a space walk ??

It would seem to me they do that because they have to, or else the
space walking astronauts would be overexposed.

Good grief, it's a good thing that you can't even do a good job of
going postal.

There's so much spare CCD DR that you can't hardly over-expose
anything, not even if you try. Some of the better CCD cameras are
capable of dealing with 16 db, and the overexposed pixels don't even
care because, unlike film they don't seem to explode. A full pixel
photon bucket is merely a fuil bucket, whereas it doesn't get itself
any fuller nor does it spill over to the next photon bucket.

Obviously you're bluffing again, pretending that you're either God or
that you're dumb and dumber, arnt you. I think you're trying to buy
yourself a few more days so that you can retire before all the official
crapolla hits the fan.

The images posted by not one but dozens of honest folks proves that the
DR of film was in fact more than sufficient. Once that positive
transparency film is scanned at nearly the micron level, from there
it's PhotoShop until you drop. Creating eye-candy is after all the one
and only such official images that ever get published by NASA or by
anyone else, including all of those Apollo mission images that were
subsequently pushed and/or skewed to whatever extent it took.

Would you folks like to see some of the NASA/Apollo shots that are
proven and officially accepted as being 100% phony, as having been
big-time promoted and published as being the real thing?

Would you like to see a few of their blue-screen oops shots?

Why don't we just tell it like it is to The Washington Post?
-
Brad Guth