UFOs Or Stars Or a Glitch In Apollo 16 Image?

[starwarp2000]

Apollo 16 Photographic Equipment

The cameras stowed in the lunar module were two 70mm Hasselblad data cameras fitted with 60mm Zeiss Metric lenses, an electric Hasselblad with a 500mm lens and two 16mm Maurer motion picture cameras with 10mm lenses. One of the Hasselblads and one of the motion picture cameras were stowed in the modular equipment stowage assembly (MESA) in the LM descent stage.

The LM Hasselblads had crew chest mounts that fit dovetail brackets on the crewman's remote control unit, thereby leaving both hands free. One of the LM motion picture cameras was mounted in the right-hand window to record descent, landing, ascent and rendezvous. The 16mm camera stowed in the MESA was also carried aboard the lunar roving vehicle to record portions of the three EVAs.

4 types of Camera were in the Lunar Module:

1. 16mm Battery Operated Camera (movie) 10mm Lens
2. 70mm Hasselblad Camera (still), 80mm Lens, 250 mm Lens, 105 mm UV Lens, 70mm Film Magazines, 70 mm UV Film Magazines
3. 70mm Lunar Surface Hasselblad Data Camera (still), 60mm Lens, Polarising Filter, 70mm Film Magazines
4. 70mm Lunar Surface Hasselblad Camera (still), 500mm Lens, 70mm Film Magazines

http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/02photoequip.htm

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_16/photography/

[Amaterasu]

I think you could move that pink line a bit higher and it would more or less reach the shadow.  If the ground isn't perfectly flat that will effect where the shadow appears too.

I like the type of approach but that example is not convincing.  Sorry.

Hmmmm...  I know the image I managed to get up (it is shrunken so much) is difficult to see.  If the line remains where it is, there is clearly (in a larger image) a nice, straight shadow on the ground.  The bulging starts where the arrow is.  If I move the line up so that the start of the shadow bulge is intersected, it crosses the flag about 1/4 of the way up.  I did not save the layered file so working with it a challenge.

Anyway, even accounting for ground variance, the lines just don't give the same angle.  No matter how hard I try to come up with a solution.  (Yeah, the line to the shadow of the flag is not exactly on the flag juncture and should be moved a small ways to the right - but nowhere near enough to touch on a place where the shadow is ambiguous.)

Thanks for looking and offering Your conclusions.  [smile]

[ArMaP]

So why are the foreground and the background both in focus on most of the Apollo pictures if the Hasselblad had a narrow depth of field?

Why do you say they had a narrow depth of field? Taking photos in the Sun in what looks like a beach, they were surrounded by a strong light, so they could use the camera with the smallest aperture possible, resulting in a big depth of field.

Unless I am mixing things up again.

Or where some of them taken in a studio?

Why would a studio camera have a bigger depth of field, shouldn't it be the opposite?

[Pimander]

Unless I am mixing things up again.
Why would a studio camera have a bigger depth of field, shouldn't it be the opposite?

Yes.  That's what I meant.  Are we confusing each other here??

[vril]

This image is a perfect example of the type of film tricks that Jay Wiedner discusses in his documentary 'Kubrick's Odyssey'.  You can quickly discern the front screen projection and thus any artifacts in the sky are likely associated with it