Interesting and Humour - page 4078

New comment
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

What kind of proof of editing is this? What does it consist of?

Here we can somehow compare the curvature of the horizon to the curvature of the earth, but we do not know whether it is the horizon of the moon, or some bump at an unknown distance and of any curvature. Therefore it is not possible to say anything at all.

The humour is that no stars are seen from the moon in any photos... In short, the thing is dark with this lunar expedition, another bluff of the americans say on REN.tv4...(( Until we fly down - we will not know... They say they are preparing a joint flight... Now the stars will be mashed together... If the state acceptance will not sign - there will be no kickbacks... )))))
 
Сергей Криушин:
The humour is that no stars from the moon are visible in any photos... in short, it's a dark business with the lunar expedition, another bluff of the Americans, they say on REN.tv4...(( Until we fly down themselves we won't know... They say they are preparing a joint flight... Now they will shoot stars together... If the state acceptance commission does not sign, there will be no kickbacks... )))))

What's the point of rolling back... We're already there)))

 

Off topic question, is it possible to create a robot in traidingwiew to send signals from there to the broker's api for example binary

 
Сергей Криушин:
The humour is that no one can see stars from the moon in any photos....In short, the thing is dark with this lunar expedition, another bluff of the Americans, they say on REN.tv4...(( until we fly themselves we will not know... They say they are preparing a joint flight... now the stars will be mashed together... If the state acceptance will not sign, there will be no kickbacks... )))))

Who says the stars have to be visible? The sun-blessed earth is a pretty bright object compared to the stars.

More surprisingly, does it really matter whether the Americans were on the moon or not?

 
Сергей Криушин:
Also the humour is that you can't see the stars from the moon in any of the pictures...

Googled it - there are no stars in any of the photos. Maybe it's just a coincidence?

I'm reminded of trips to the south. Huge amount of stars, not even flickering.

 
Сергей Криушин:
The humour is that no stars from the moon are visible in any photos... in short, the whole thing is dark with the lunar expedition, another bluff of the americans said on REN.tv4...( until we fly down themselves we won't know... They say they are preparing a joint flight... now the stars will be mapped together... If the state acceptance will not sign, no kickbacks will happen... )))))


It's simple.
To shoot stars and have them appear in the frame, you need a shutter speed of 600/focal length. For example, if your lens is 16mm, you would need a shutter speed of 30 seconds to get the Milky Way.

But to take pictures of the moon or the earth, in this case, the shutter speed should be 1/250 or faster. Otherwise you'll get a glow in the frame and the moon will turn into a flame. The shutter speed has to be fast to see the outline.

Bottom line. With a fast shutter speed we get the moon, and with a slow shutter speed we get stars.

If we want both, we have to take several shots and combine them.

That's why everything is normal.
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

Who says the stars have to be visible? The sun-blessed earth is a pretty bright object compared to the stars.

More surprisingly, does it really matter if the Americans were on the moon or not?


from earth at sunrise, when day turns to night, you can see the stars (check)

if you do not care that you are tricked and perceived as no smarter than a sheep - then you really do not care if the americans were on the moon ...

 
Vladislav Andruschenko:


It's simple.
To shoot stars and have them appear in the frame, you need a shutter speed of 600/focal length. For example, if your lens is 16mm, you would need a shutter speed of 30 seconds to get the Milky Way.

But to take pictures of the moon or the earth, in this case, the shutter speed should be 1/250 or faster. Otherwise you'll get a glow in the frame and the moon will turn into a flame. The shutter speed has to be fast to see the outline.

Bottom line. With a fast shutter speed we get the moon, and with a slow shutter speed we get stars.

If you want both, you have to take several shots and combine them.

That's why it's okay.

Then where's the one shot with the stars - was it a bummer to shoot or did you run out of film?

 
elmucon:

from the ground at sunrise, when day turns to night - you can see the stars (check)

And if you don't care if you're being led around by the nose and are perceived as no smarter than a sheep - then you really don't care if the Amerians have been to the moon...


When you look with your eyes, because the eye has a high capacity for adaptation. Or the camera.

 
elmucon:

Then where's the one shot with the stars - did you have a hard time shooting or did you run out of film?

Well, it's not as simple a process as you might think. I'm not defending the shot, just explaining the art of photography.
1...407140724073407440754076407740784079408040814082408340844085...4977
New comment