Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory

Own HQ scan of AS11-40-5931, 70mm duplicate fiducials

<< < (2/3) > >>

JayUtah:
Hm, all the verified first-gen dupe masters I've seen have the sequence numbers on the edge.  Based on that, I doubt what you have is first-generation.  However, in actuality a number of copies were made from the camera transparencies for purposes other than duplication.  So maybe you have something that descended from one of them.

apollo16uvc:

--- Quote from: JayUtah on January 04, 2021, 12:29:45 PM ---Hm, all the verified first-gen dupe masters I've seen have the sequence numbers on the edge.  Based on that, I doubt what you have is first-generation.  However, in actuality a number of copies were made from the camera transparencies for purposes other than duplication.  So maybe you have something that descended from one of them.

--- End quote ---

Some of the stuff for sale on his account does have frame numbers and digital digits.

Apparently somebody who worked for nasa or had connections. He just kept some for keepsakes? Or nasa was going to throw it out. I think that is why a lot of stuff is still around I think.

In a video, any information I can tell about the duping progress, how people got hold of dupes, what they were used for.

Your conclusion from my scans?

JayUtah:

--- Quote from: apollo16uvc on January 11, 2021, 08:34:50 AM ---Or nasa was going to throw it out. I think that is why a lot of stuff is still around I think.
--- End quote ---

That's my guess.  With high-quality digital scans now available, the demand for film duplication is probably minimal.  Discards from NASA and contractors are how they got hold of the guidance computer in near-working condition.  Someone just bought a ton (as in literally, that's how it was represented) of miscellaneous discarded NASA equipment, and while rooting through the debris they recognized the equipment.


--- Quote ---In a video, any information I can tell about the duping progress, how people got hold of dupes, what they were used for.
--- End quote ---

The information I recall about the duping process is that they used commercial automated equipment for the most part, operating within the established variance limits Eastman provided.  Ordinary people could order duplicates in many forms from NASA's AV contractor.  Once NASA provided dupe masters, they essentially washed their hands of the need to supply them for editorial use.  You need to remember that masters were created that were not first- or second-generation duplicates from the camera originals.  So something you could accurately call a dupe master need not have been a rare or expensive thing.


--- Quote ---Your conclusion from my scans?
--- End quote ---

With regard to the fiducials, your results are similar to mine.  Mere duplication and scanning has a notable effect on the fiducial density, but doesn't seem ever to obliterate them altogether.  I had to use DCT encoding at typical settings in order to make them go away altogether.

bknight:

--- Quote from: JayUtah on January 11, 2021, 11:20:54 AM ---
--- Quote from: apollo16uvc on January 11, 2021, 08:34:50 AM ---...

With regard to the fiducials, your results are similar to mine.  Mere duplication and scanning has a notable effect on the fiducial density, but doesn't seem ever to obliterate them altogether.  I had to use DCT encoding at typical settings in order to make them go away altogether.

--- End quote ---
Why would you desire an image without the fiducials?
--- End quote ---

JayUtah:
Well, first, what I mean by "altogether" is that just the portion of a fiducial that lies over a very bright background is no longer visible against the background.  That doesn't mean you still can't see other parts of the same fiducial that happen to lie over a darker background.  The goal is to understand the mechanism by which that might occur in a typical workflow for the digital images released a while ago, that some hoax claimants have used to say the images were composed.

In my experiments, overexposure on the film wasn't enough to cause the effect, although the fiducial was dimmer.  Scanning didn't contribute to it.  Even reductions in resolution using common algorithms and error diffusion didn't make fiducials over bright spots disappear.  Finally it was JPEG-style image compression using something like a 75% quality setting that caused the faint fiducial segments to become completely invisible on a white background.  As this would not be an atypical workflow for processing images to release as a convenience on the web in the 1990s, I consider the hypothesis suitably supported by evidence.

As for reasons in general why someone would not want fiducials in the picture, there are various artistic and editorial arguments.  But in those cases, the fiducials are removed entirely, probably by digital editing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page