4 ms·
An interesting angle I learnt recently that I hadn’t considered on why the landings weren’t faked: they didn’t have the camera technology to do it. Apparently
by danpalmer 6y ago
An interesting angle I learnt recently that I hadn’t considered on why the landings weren’t faked: they didn’t have the camera technology to do it.
Apparently camera tech at the time for slow motion (for the movement in low gravity) made the ~hour long takes essentially impossible. I hadn’t realised that the recordings were single takes, but to slow down to quarter speed, maintaining ~30fps broadcast quality, would require 120fps cameras that didn’t exist, and more continuous tape recording than was possible by several orders of magnitude.
We really were in the very early days of video/TV technology, and it wasn’t until these technologies improved and we collectively forgot how they were that the theories really started to get going.
https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs
- SahAssar 6y ago> than was possible by several orders of magnitude. Nitpicking here, but it clearly couldn't have been by "several orders of magnitude" since they were using tape that was 1/4th of that for the actual recording.
- thephyber 6y agoI think the argument is that the landing was broadcast televised (streamed, not filmed). The linked video seems to compare the "instant replay" drive (rather than a traditional film camera) for the orders of magnitude. The similar comparison of film-to-film seems to have ore to do with splicing and the switchover from one reel to another. Anyway you look at it, conspiracy theorists will always say "they had 2% of US GDP for a decade... they could have invented any number of technologies to assist with the filming".
- danpalmer 6y agoThey could record the live broadcast from the moon on to multiple reels, but they couldn't replay from multiple. They would have needed a lot of tape, but not one continuous play.