SH Archive Photograph of the Moon, 1865

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Addiction365
Date: 2019-12-21 19:23:20
Reaction Score: 1

And of course "Good morning, good afternoon, good day, good evening, good night" all have positive connotations.

good morning/ good mourning doesn't have a positive connotation.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2019-12-21 21:12:52
Reaction Score: 1

It was the COMSTOCK ACT.
When you set yourself up as judge, jury AND executioner, you make the rules, you call the shots, you bully and overpower others with pure CHARISMA. "Enchanting" to watch.
So, when they passed that arbitrary invasion of rights and privacy, they took LOADS of photographs away. And peeps are usually so gullible and prone to give away their authority, they just ALLOW it to happen. Again and again.
But, 1873, pretty conspicuous date for this thing to be implemented.
Nobody suspects the Inquisition!!!

 

[Frits]

Snowboarding and skate can teach you some interesting tips about the concept of "forced perspective," and the usage of a fish eye lens. A little handrail looks much more epic if you can optically stretch its' dimensions without physically altering the object itself.

Now, here is some super dope NASA skate footage using a fish eye lens:

We all know that if you show too much detail, you expose inconsistencies. An 1865 photo of the moon that looks like a DSLR image, mighty fishy.

Nice to see how the clouds don't move.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Liked reading through this thread particularly regarding the questions raised about cameras/optics/telescopes - have we been told the truth? or have these things regressed?

I did a search for the oldest photograph of the planets and ended up concentrating on Mars , couldn't find any early photos of the other planets.

The first images NASA took of Mars pale in comparison to the ones we have now

Apparently the photos of Mars portrayed in this article are the best we had until we sent spacecraft there.

Telescopes were good enough from 1877 to show enough detail on the Martian surface for astronomers Giovanni Schiaparelli ,Percival Lowell and others to conclude there were canal type features on the planet -a view held into the twentieth century.

The great red spot of Jupiter was discovered by Hooke in 1665 and also was seen by Cassini around that time .

Seems very odd that we have no real photographs of the planets that are not CGI.

Have atmospheric conditions contributed to this ? - onset of the industrial revolution , particle and light atmospheric pollution maybe. Or maybe we are being hoodwinked about the optics.

 

[AntiSoof]

Taking a perfect photo of the moon should be easy. The lens should be very slightly curved, almost flat. That's (almost) all. Remember, the moon is very big, so there's plenty of light and detail.
So the lens can be almost flat like window glass. But it must be large and far away from the negative or the receiver. Maybe a meter as a focal point. The most beautiful trick is to make the recorder (negative film or the electronic recorder; the 'sensor') as the eye. That is, HOLLOW. There are then no sharpness distortions anymore. (For more sharpness one can put oil between the lens and the recorder (the 'sensor') too!)
If I can make it up, then people long ago used to be able to do it too.

The fallacy that many make is that people think from what we see. But remember, the eye creates the illusion. And that's a good thing. In this way we can estimate distances, among other things.
But something that is far away has NOT become very small. That's 'the' illusion! It's still the same size! Also for the camera. The lens does it. That confuses us.

Thats why it must be ease te make a perfect photo. (Also to make a picture of 'Mars'. (lol))

One can also use a mirrorglass.

It is may be good to mention the work of the Dutch Koerbagh and Spinoza. Spinoza was buzy making lenzes in 1670. And he was 'banned' from his community.