Message from @m. scott veach
Discord ID: 551585046855680010
Not being funny..did he?
oh, i thought you were making a 'could they or couldn't they see the stars" joke... no,i don't think so... i think his exposures were all set for earht and inside the shuttle
but tbh there are so many CDs of pictuers and i've not gone through them with a finetooth comb or oanything... @wilman757
@m. scott veach ok...just asking..not being an a**
Sorry
it's okay... trust me, i'm used to people coming at me like "your dad is a fucking liar, space is fake, etc" so I'm used to it
Thought the same
I know that FE belief dictates that conclusion. I don't take it personally.
Lots of people that deny the existence of space and stars here lol
Yep. Same with my server. Even globers I know are doubtful sometimes of NASA.
NASA has put out a lot of bullshit
@m. scott veach @Smoothie Mane I'm not pro or con...just seems that I would picture earth as well as stars..?
His dad was in low earth orbit so I don't think that shot would've been so easy
The main BS is the fake alien agenda @Smoothie Mane
@wilman757 the issue is dynamic range of photography.. .it can't expose but very bright and very dim things at once.. so you have to pick one or the other basically
You gotta consider the possibility that some of what theyre trying to "hide" they only want to seem like they are trying to hide it.
The old reverse psychology like tactic
I would have been interested to see what the pic looked like.ev en if it didn't come out...
i think there are certain heavy films that can expose both dim and bright faithfully, they are expensive but you no longer rely on the aperture decisions
@HyperBaroque yeah, i could believe that... especially in recent years.....
@m. scott veach ok thx..
these are old things iirc from the late 60s
err. maybe late 70s. i seem to rememver they are post french new wave
maybe even 80s
@HyperBaroque like when my dad took thast pic it was a mechanical camera... analog... but these days a digital camera should be able to take 3 pics at once at different exposures all at once...
and then you can merge them basically
well, the film exists. i think it was sensitive material but a bulk of it
you know what the range was?
in terms of stops?
not sure. im not that into film production. i remember it just being thick.
@HyperBaroque check it out: Dynamic Range
Once the almighty reason to shoot with analog film over digital, dynamic range is no longer the huge debate it once was in the past. While the dynamic range of an Image is a complex process that takes into account the sensor used, the type of file compression, and other factors, digital is ultimately winning against analog film.
A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it.
Independent testing of dynamic range on film cameras, such as the tests conducted by Roger N. Clark, showed that high-end digital cameras in 2005 began to show “huge dynamic range compared to [scans of] either print or slide film”. Films used in the testing included Kodak Gold 200 and Fujifilm FujiChrome Velvia.
so basically, yes, you're right.. modern film has a wide range
and maybe there was a special fancy film back in the 70s that could do it too
i remember it as heavy material, the process took some time so it wasn't good for motion video
and expensive
not the process, sorry, the exposure. i guess the development took a long time as well.
Thaaaank you