Cameras for the Moon (or maybe Kubrick used something completely different)

in #steemstem6 years ago

In one of my previous posts, I wrote about the photographic evidence that we went to the Moon.

Today I will focus on camera gear they actually used to take the photos from the Moon.

Hasselblad went to space:


It was October 1962, when astronaut Walter Schirra prepared for the mission Mercury-Atlas 8. He was not the first man in space (he was the 9th) nor the first American (he was the fifth), but he stayed remembered as the first man who took the "ordinary" camera to space and made some photos that will make flatearthers cry:


Public Domain image. Do you see the curvature :) And the lens was not wide-angle with some bad distortion

This photo was made using the Hasselblad 500C camera and Zeiss Planar f/2.8, 80 mm lens.

I can't show you the photo of this camera, but you can click right here

This camera has been sold in 2014 for 280.000 $, and it (probably) could be yours for 500.000 $... "Non-original" 500C cameras can be found for the price range between 500 and 750 $. Some later iterations that look pretty much the same are in 300 $ range.

Surprisingly, this was just an ordinary camera, regularly purchased, but "heavily" modified. It was painted black and stripped a bit to save a few grams. That's it! The magazine for the film was standard, the lens was standard, just an ordinary camera.

But the Hasselblad went to space, and the myth was born.

Hasselblad, just the perfect camera for the spacewalk photography


Once the Hasselblad proved its quality, NASA continued to send it into space according to the old rule: "don't change the things that work".

While Leica paved its way as the camera of choice for street photography, Hasselblad was used during the first spacewalk:


PD Image. Model, Edward White, photographer James A. McDivitt

The conditions were strange, but not that extreme as some people think.
According to popular beliefs, it's about 300 Celsius where the Sun is shining and -300 Celsius in the shadow (ok.. -273 C). The temperature switch is, of course, instantaneous and there is no material that could withstand that.

But this is incorrect because there is no medium to instantaneously bring the heat to the object or to take it away. There is a vacuum in space, it's a great insulator and the only way to dissipate the heat is via irradiation. This process is very inefficient.
In practice, the temperature was between 65 and 120 C, with slow, gradual changes.

Hasselblad to the Moon!


Maybe you are wondering why I keep writing the name "Hasselblad". I'll tell you the secret, I'm not paid by them per Hasselblad words used... I'm constantly forgetting how to spell some words: neigh-borg-hhood, Hassel-bald and Young-uno-ou. Now I will finally learn...

After some refinements, it was decided to use Hasselblad 500EL with the Zeiss Planar f-2.8/80 mm and Zeiss Sonnar f-5.6/250 mm. "EL" stand for electronic winding system.


Image from NASA. Check the link to read more about the camera used in Apollo 8, 9 and 10 missions.

This camera also became known for the strange looking crosshair pattern.


Image from the same source


Image obtained from Stanley K... NASA! From NASA!

The crosshairs were used to make a calibration mesh that could be used to estimate the distances. How? Well, we know specs. for the lens (we know the angle of view). And if we make a mesh, we will be able to use simple proportions to determine the sizes and distances. A very similar principle can be found on numerous optical scopes (rifle scopes, scopes on anti-tank weapons...).

Some conspiracy theories are pointing out the missing crosshairs, but those are not missing and the explanation is simple - "color bleeding". If the areas are very bright, some of the brightness will "enter" the crosshair. If you want to try it yourself, point the camera to some wires or branches during the sunny day.

There were some technical challenges to solve. The first one was the question how to remove the static electricity from the film and avoid the potential fire. The solution was relatively simple - some fine metal wires that will transfer it to the camera body. And the second question how to chose the lubrication oils that will not make a mess in the vacuum.

Curiosity fact, poor cameras stayed to ton Moon (12 of them). Only the film was taken back.

Keep in mind that those were (relatively) standard cameras, with the (relatively) standard lens without some weird ultra-low aperture numbers that you were able to purchase. Thus the theories that those were some special, superb, unique cameras delivered to some crazy film director are - simply false.

The most often questions related to shooting:


Some people are wondering what settings they used? They didn't have any light meters. The answer is - practice. Back in the day, there were tables with the data you simply learned. You knew the setting for the sunny and cloudy weather, and you were able to compensate the shutter stops with the aperture stops. This is easy.

The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.

How did they manage to achieve the proper focus?

With the hight aperture number and relatively short 35-mm equivalent focal length, most of the things were in focus. If you play with the vintage lenses, you also learn to focus almost blindfolded.

Curiosity fact No2: John Glenn was the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962. For this adventure, he took the Minolta Ansco Autoset 35mm camera. Just the most ordinary camera you can imagine. As you see, in the capsule, there is nothing especially challenging for the camera.

References:

  • Hasselblad, official page, link
  • Photos from Mercury-Atlas 8, link
  • Hasselblad 500EL, link
  • Fantastic Website, but it's in French link
  • The Best Shoots from the Moon, link
  • Cameras from the Apollo 11 link
  • Light text from PetaPixels
  • Moon Camera Settings, link
  • Medium Format Crop Factor

I had a great time writing about this. I hope you enjoyed the reading. Be free to comment, this is an interactive platform that is designed to "make some money" but the human aspect is the key ingredient that holds the community. If there are no readers - writing is pointless.

Keep steemSTEM-ing

Sort:  

And you managed to spell Hasselblad once wrongly (Hasselbald), at the most funnier place of this post that was possible :D

Thanks for this. I learned something! :)

My grandma once bought some cheap batteries. Three days later she cursed SONY for producing garbage. And once upon the time, Sony made the best stuff. How could it be that Sony batteries last only a couple of days!?

Actually, she bought SQNY.

Lol! Beware of the stimstem upvotes ;)_

I'll change the strategy. 3x photo, 1x cars, 1xSTEM

pppcS?

It took me 10 minutes to understand this... Whole my life I wanted +5 cm of height and +25 IQ points :D

lol :D

I should stop spamming the comments of this post [the author may turn upset at some point ;) ]

and the multiple sources of lighting, how do you explain those?

It's a common question with the very simple answer:

  • this is diffused ("soft") light that is coming from the reflective surfaces ("soil", another astronaut etc...). This is why photographers use these things for outdoor portraits
  • there were no reflectors used and it's very easy to prove. First, there are no multiple shadows. During the football games - there are hard shadows
  • and finally, there is something called "inverse square distance law". During the lunar rover rides, astronauts covered very large distances. If the reflectors were used, there would be a significant drop in the amount of available light. In other words, very far objects would be pitch black

As an amateur, hobby photographer I don't see anything unusual in those photos.
If I needed to stage it, I would work during the day (not night), because I couldn't get the proper lighting.
But, there would be a problem with the black sky. I could paint the filter (very common) but it could be clearly seen.

Overall conclusion - I have no idea how to recreate those shots.
And none of my friends (way better in photography than me) have no idea how this could be properly done.

If anyone could recreate the shots using the equipment produced before 1990 (not 60's, not 70's but 90's) I would be stunned. Keep in mind that there was also a video footage with very strange dust behabiour.

032307c0.jpg

![00cdf2c0.jpg]

()

11aldrinaccoutermentsfb9.jpg

5314c378cd6fe.jpeg

12142020985_8318672d69_m A16.jpg

don't look that good today, but it was convincing enough back then. i'm not convinced, not one little bit. perhaps the only reason people behave so gullibly with this stuff is because they want to carry on trusting that the rulers aren't evil murdering liars (wmd's anyone?) or it's the pride to admit they've been fooled? i don't know, everyone has a choice in the age of information. peace.

Yes, the first one is some simulator. Do you suggest that the shot was done using the 1:1000 scaled figures :)

Crane... Ok... Cranes exist. But I don't get it, it's way easier to fire a rocket than messing around with the crane.

Grey objects appear white when exposed to strong light. Basically, any colour can become white once overexposed. Antena appearing/ disappearing - nothing unusual if the antenna is white and the background is black or white. W+W = not visible W+B = not visible if underexposed. There was no light meter, thus all the settings were done "by feeling"

Parallel shadows... Shadows are never parallel, due to - reasons. If you don't trust me, take a camera. Make some shots and you will see.

The last photo is the absolute proof of vacuum because the debris is forming a sphere

if you believe the last photo (and easily watchable video on youtube) is real there is no hope. you have the gullibility of a small child. apollo 16 & 17 take off, with crappy 70's special fx coloured confetti. vertically, by a crane. so obvious. except to the blind.

so pedantic. the scale moon was for the 'approach' shots. like i said, small child. lol. oh my word you have a phd. lmao.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63396.80
ETH 2615.51
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.86