no its not

Pictures are proof something exists now? I have pictures of bigfoot and lock ness monster

@Udo ya that wouldn't work would it

Because if it wasn’t slow motion, it couldn’t have happened on Earth, right

the rate at which objects fall is not linear, and slowing it down is linear

h=1/2At^2 but slowing it down would make it a different function

Anyone know anything about how slow motion is produced in film cameras?

There are two ways to make motion slow:
One is, you shoot it at normal speed, and play it back slow.
One is, you shoot it fast and play it back normal.
The second way is called ‘Overcranking’. It looks smoother and more realistic because you’re sampling natural motion at a higher frame rate. But that means they would’ve had to shoot it on film using high speed film cameras, right? Why

@Udo I dont' know myself, how is it done

In 1969 there were no high-speed video cameras yet. Some people did have magnetic disk recorders that could capture normal speed video and play it back slow. They used it for sports replays; it could record up to 30 seconds. Play back at 10 fps and you got a whopping 90 seconds of slowmo. I say 10 FPS because that was the video framerate for Apollo 11

They had a Non-Interlaced Slow Scan TV camera specially made for them by Westing House. All the later missions were using regular NTSC video cameras running at 29,97 FPS. That would be 3x harder to fake

Your point?

I'm getting there if you'd let me.

Or this guy can spam

lmao

@!GPT things are smaller at distance mhm

Keep in mind when people today watch documentaries about the Apollo missions, they’re looking at the highlights. They’re looking at short clips cut together. Short clips are much easier to fake. But in July 1969, 600 million people were all staring at a continuous lunar telecast that went on for a long time.

16 min into the EVA they turn on the video camera. 4min later you get your “one small step for man”, then aldrin climbs out, they move the camera onto a tripod, and proceed to do all their moon walking, flag planting, photo snapping, and rock picking. Then Armstrong climbs back up into the lander and its over. By this time the camera has been running for over 143 minutes.

So if we’re faking this with electronic slowmo at 1/3rd speed, we only need to record 47 minutes of continuous live action video on disk.

750k miles from the moon

250k from earth

lmao

That’s a lot more than that Ampex Magnetic disk recorder could hold. Again, commercially available recorders could only hold 30 seconds of video

the top isn't even a real image

But for the sake of argument, NASA is special, maybe they have a really large one (in 1969). How much bigger? 96x bigger? They are NASA… maybe they have some super advanced high-speed electronics that no one knows about? But wait a minute, conspiracy theorists said the navigation computers were too slow so they couldn’t possibly have it both ways. Point being: Electronics are not good enough apparently to have a navigation computer that good, so they can’t have electronics good enough for an advanced high-speed camera capable of holding all that footage.

can i get unmuted now?

Ok.. so they can't do it with slomo high speed cameras cause it doesn't exist in that scale.

@Hugoboiii no

Lets say they try to do it with film.

why

flattie

In 1969 we already knew how to overcrank on film. For Apollo 11 you’d only need to shoot at 30 FPS and play it back at 10 FPS.