So your belief is that Gary Neff, who's film reproductions and commentary about the film being sped up 5 times for TV audiences is wrong and Jay Utah is right?

If that is the case you better start writing to NASA as Mr Neff's comments and movies appear on NASA's own history website!

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

[QUOTE=JayUtah;1441047]No, your question as I understood it was if Mr Neffs videos were as good a quality as the telecasts (those originally televised to the TV audience in 1969?) I would say that yes they are.

Wow, the man finally wakes up. Go and look back at how many times I've said 'I'm only talking about the Apollo 11 missing tapes.'

So what in your infinite wisdom did Neff mean when he says 'The film was shot at 6 frames per second, but displayed at 29.972 frames per second for the TV audience. In other words, 5 times too fast. '

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

But you said earlier that you hadn't written it yet! How can I read it if you haven't written it? Further, again, if you bring it up here, you have to defend it here. You know that; you cannot play the victim now.

You've also been asked what you think has been hidden by those tapes going missing, and you have been unable to answer. You think something has; fine. However, you insist that whatever-it-was was not being hidden on later missions (because you declare them irrelevant), and you cannot say how whatever-it-was remained hidden when high quality photographs and not-TV film were produced from Apollo 11. So far as I can see, you've no evidence and no clearly-defined ideas. So why should I bother going to your website at all, if you can't say anything better than what you've said here?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

TV was broadcast by pointing a camera at a monitor displaying the incoming TV images, I thought that had been explained? It's all easily verifiable stuff.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I don't find any reference to him saying it was "sped up." That's your intepretation of how to deal with something that's photographed at 6 fps but needs to be rendered on a machine operating at 30 fps.

[ETA: I eventually did find the reference to the "five times too fast" statement. Dave's link talked only about television. I had to look elsewhere to find Neff's comment on one film clip. See below.]

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

While taking the totallity of the frames and showing them faster, thus going from 6 FPS to ~30FPS would not the prefered method, solong as it's acompanied by Yakety Sax, it's acceptable in my books.

I suggest you read up on video conversion for a more complete view of how it is done.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Wow, the man finally wakes up. Go and look back at how many times I've said 'I'm only talking about the Apollo 11 missing tapes.'

Don't conflate the issues.

The first issue is what you meant by saying you were looking at online videos to judge their quality. You did indeed qualify that statement by saying you were "looking at Apollo 11 videos." I was able to find that portion of the discussion and verify it.

I don't agree that they are as high quality reproductions of the available material as what are easily obtained from other sources for Apollo 11. But the line of reasoning I had intended to pursue is not relevant if you are talking only about having seen Apollo 11 video conversions online.

The second issue is whether you are still obliged to reconcile your hypothesis with the availability of high-quality video from subsequent missions. You are. You say NASA has something to hide, and therefore you must explain why they didn't hide it in the other examples of similar data. Others have offered various ways in that might be done, but you have neither availed yourself of any of the offered solutions nor found one of your own. You have instead simply waved your hands and declared that data irrelevant, ostensibly because it doesn't fit your theory.

Until you stop cherry-picking your data, you may not escape that line of questioning.

So what in your infinite wisdom did Neff mean when he says 'The film was shot at 6 frames per second, but displayed at 29.972 frames per second for the TV audience. In other words, 5 times too fast. '

You may not know the difference between TV and film, but the rest of us do. Your statement comes from http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/BuzzInEagle.html and discusses one clip of Aldrin shot on the Maurer 16mm DAC at 6 fps (the setting used for docking coverage). It was not available for "TV audiences" until after the mission, naturally. I have sadly seen many of the Apollo 16mm film clips reproduced and broadcast at the wrong frame rate. NASA isn't responsible for what people do with its film after they receive it.

There is no audio.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the television signal sent from the spacecraft.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

It's quite common to see the rendezvous films at the sped-up rate. It all looks pretty normal if you don't consider the speed of translation over the Moon -- right up to the point where they do the final approach and docking attitude changes, which look absurdly speedy.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Do you happen to know the difference between film and TV? Can you even identify what you are looking at?

Film of the approach, rendezvous, docking and landing was captured at low frame rates, later quite often sped up to make the whole thing take place in a sensible time frame without boring the viewer. There is no audio with it. If someone speeds it up and chooses to synch certain parts of the separately recorded audio with it, that's their affair. You can't take that and assume NASA is trying to present that as a true, real-time verison of events.

The TV was captured at lower frame rates (for the sake of keeping bandwidth down) and converted for normal boradcast by simply showing that same frame several times so that it fills out the time on a normal TV broadcast. The footage doesn't get sped up, just converted.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Even when sped up, it's coma-inducing. No-one could watch it at normal speed unless they were a complete space tragic (or Dunbar).

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

[QUOTE=cosmicdave;1441075]

The film is run at its projection speed of 6 frames per second. The flying spot scanner used to convert the film to video signal would more than likely be configured to scan the same frame 5 more times, thus allowing motion to occur at the same rate as it did during the filming. The other alternative is to run the flying spot scanner and film at 29.97 frames per second and slow the resultant video down. However the introduction of image artifacting makes that process useless. If you watch the film shot at 6fps and shown at 29.97 with the original amount of time passing in a particular segment being projected/scanned as it was when originally shot, then that is precisely how you'd do it...

And that procedure can be verified by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. The people who set the standards in film and television.

__________________
"TV online! Goldstone TV online! Honeysuckle video online!!"

You're welcome, Dave.

If you scroll further down the page, he also says that the Apollo landing was filmed at 6 fps. My contention is, if the footage was sped up to 30fps for TV audiences, how come that the audio still was in time with the events on the footage that was running 5 times faster?

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

Dwight answered that in this post, in essence the "frames per second" rate in Films is quite different than the "frames per second" rate in television, which should not be too strange considering they are completely different media.

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

The audio was using a different means of transmission and a different radio frequency.

Hi, in television you can shoot a tape or a live image at 6 frames per second, but transform that for a live TV screen showing to be viewed at 30 frames per second. This is done electronically, by freezing every frame for about 1/5 of a second. So, what you would be seeing with video on a TV screen is 6 frames per second, spread out over one second. Each frame would be held on the screen for 1/5 of a second. 6 of these single consecutive frames would = 1 second of video shown on the TV screen, with each one being on the screen for 1/5 of a second before the change to the next one.

For film, NASA often shot their 16 mm film at less than the standard 24 fps, so they could get more time in, without having to take a lot of big film reels with them. To show this film on TV, they would have each frame optically printed several times. For example, if the film was shot at 6 frames per second, during the printing process, each frame would be printed 4 times, using an optical printer rather than a contact printer. A contact printer has no pull-down claw, but an optical printer has two of them. One for the original film and another for the raw film being printed to.

Here is a video from Apollo 11 TV video (actually it seems to be a kinescope, since there are white dust spots on some of the frames). Note the jumpy jerky action of the astronaut. That’s because the photography was made at a slower frame-per-second rate than the play-back rate:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

If that link doesn't work, try this one and scroll down to:

Journal Text: 110:13:30 RealVideo Clip: (2 minutes 52 seconds).

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html#Mobility

Can you find a relevant clip that shows the film and audio in synch?

I'm still not convinced, reading your responses, that you understand that the landing was filmed on a 16mm camera, had no audio, and was never broadcast live. There was no TV sent from the moon during the landing. There wasn't even a TV camera in the LM cabin. The terrestrial TV coverage of the landing included simulations played back in the studio, matched up as best they could with the live audio coming back. When you see that film, shot from the LM window, now, you need to ascertain what the frame rate of playback is, and if any other method has been used to extend the time of the playback, for example repeating frames in order to restore it to near real-time coverage.

The TV coverage of the EVA was captured at a lower frame rate (10fps, if I recall correctly) and broadcast live, but it was not 'sped up' to 30fps for the live TV audiences but converted, mainly by means of repeating frames 3 times each so that you still get 30fps on the TV, but there are only ten different frames in there.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

If you scroll further down the page, he also says that the Apollo landing was filmed at 6 fps.

The only camera capable of a 6 fps frame rate was the Maurer 16mm DAC. The television camera does not operate at that frame rate, and was not operating at all during the landing procedure. The landing (i.e., the approach and touchdown of the lunar module) was photographed with the 16mm DAC and no other camera.

The 16mm film record was not available for broadcast until after the mission was complete and the film was returned to Earth and processed. There is absolutely no relevance between the 16mm film and the live Apollo 11 telecast. There was no live broadcast of the actual LM landing as it occurred.

My contention is, if the footage was sped up to 30fps for TV audiences, how come that the audio still was in time with the events on the footage that was running 5 times faster?

There is no audio recorded on the 16mm film. Any depiction where the picture is taken from 16mm film and is accompanied by audio has been assembled by some subsequent editor from different sources.

If any of the frame-rate conversions was done, then an approximate synchronization is possible with separate audio sources. If no frame-rate conversion has been done, and the film is simply sped up 5 times, then there is no expectation that it will sync with any audio, even if the editor has provided audio.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Can you give us a link to that page? I can't find it.

Apollo 11 Video Library

I believe cosmicdave is referring to this, found under the heading, "The First Lunar Landing":

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Thank you for that link. It demonstrates the point quite nicely, I think. Watch the craters as they pass by. They're not moving smoothly but looks decidedly jerky, as you'd expect if you were watching a 6fps playback, in fact....

[Edited to add]

Sure enough, when I saved that into a video editing program and performed a frame by frame playback, the image only changed every sixth frame. So, not only was it captured at 6fps, but is being played back at 6 fps as well, hence the pictures and audio will synch up nicely.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Here's an attempt to illustrate how the 6 FPS 16mm film was converted to ~30 FPS video without being "sped up":


6 FPS:..1....2....3....4....5....6....

30 FPS:.111112222233333444445555566666

Time:...|----------1 second----------|


If you have to display 30 images per second but you're provided only 6 images per second, you have to fill in the blank frames by repeating the last image you received.

As was pointed out, no audio was recorded directly on the 16mm DAC film. However, since the time base wasn't (significantly) changed during the frame rate conversion, separately recorded real time audio isn't too difficult to sync during post production of a video product.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Hi, thanks for the link. And thanks for the fps conversion chart.

In the old days, the 1960s and ‘70s, 16 mm film was often copied to video by means of a special projector known as a “film chain”. It was basically a film projector with a dim light, projecting the image through a lens and into a TV-pickup tube.

Every TV station had one to show movies on TV. The older machines did not make a nice smooth conversion dub from 24 fps to 30 fps, and quite often some of the TV frames would have parts of two film frames on them.

Another method in the old days was the “kinescope”. It was basically a film camera with just the right size of opening on the shutter, and it photographed a high-quality TV screen. In the 1950s, “live” TV shows were photographed with live TV cameras, while a kinescoping film camera was also running. This was because not all local TV stations were on the New York-to-Los Angeles Telephone cable yet, so smaller stations in small towns and out of the way cities had to wait a week for the “live” TV show to arrive at their station in the form of one or two reels of film.

In recent years, some new kind of film-to-TV device has been invented so that the frames are repeated the correct amount, with no double exposures.

In recent years, some new kind of film-to-TV device has been invented so that the frames are repeated the correct amount, with no double exposures.

Don't forget that video here is 60 fields per second (a frame is more of a logical concept in video), so 24 film frames per second converts to 60 fields per second with no double exposures, although with a slight jerkiness to the motion from the 3:2 cadence.

I've seen the double exposures while editing video tape of a film. While doing a still frame of a video, the video can be stopped one full frame at a time. If this is done with an old film to video conversion, we can see the double exposures.

If you run an old VHS tape of a movie, and run it in still-frame format, one frame after another, say at a couple of frames a second, you can see the double exposures on the older movie dubs.

With modern dubbing machines, a modern movie is converted with every 4th frame copied twice onto the video tape. If you run a video of this at a very slow speed, you can count the film frames: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, etc.

I've seen the double exposures while editing video tape of a film.

Yes, those are artifacts of frame grabbing, which combines two fields into a single frame. When watching the video sequence normally, the fields are displayed individually to provide a poor man's 60 Hz frame rate. (I'm thinking in terms of the interlaced monitors that NTSC video was designed for.)

I just meant to post a reminder that video conversions are done in terms of fields for broadcast video.

Hi, thanks for the information. The inter-lacing explains the double exposure of film frames that can be seen in a video still frame, but it can’t be seen while the video is moving.

Here is some geeky technical stuff about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecin...te_differences
See the “2:3 pulldown” section, and the A, B, C, D chart.

And see this:

http://www.xyhd.tv/2007/09/how-to/ho...ideo-telecine/

Well, I tihnk we have enough information on film transfer etc to answer Consicdaves questions about frame rates and playback.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Yes, it's funny how the non-conspiracy types have no problem with answering questions.

However, I am still a bit in the dark about what the conspiracy is supposed to be. Is it yet another case of, "I'm sure NASA is lying about something, I just don't know what"?

That seems to be it.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

A part of me imagines cosmicdave coming back onto this website and saying, "Sorry guys, I realise now that I have nothing. I'm sorry I came over all arrogant and downright rude when it was clear from early on that I was being rude to people who know a lot more about the relevant subjects than I do. I think I've learnt something from this, and I thank you for your patience."

Perhaps I'm too imaginative.