
China Has Released True Color HD Photos of the Moon - antouank
http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/30/china-just-released-true-color-hd-photos-of-the-moon/
======
rcthompson
It's kind of weird seeing crystal clear HD pictures of space objects. I think
we just associate blurry black & white images with space, since most of the
probes that we have currently exploring other planets and moons were launched
before it was practical to include full-color HD cameras (and/or the requisite
data transmission capacity) on space probes. (Similar to how people
subjectively prefer 24 FPS for feature films.)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I'm not sure I agree... This [1] is from Apollo 17, and I don't think the
quality is any worse than these new ones.

[1]
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-...](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20378HR.jpg)

~~~
np422
Hasselblads cameras was used in the Apollo missions. [1]

Twelve hasselblad cameras were left behind on the moons surface.

It was not that many years ago, around y2k or shortly thereafter if I remember
correctly, that hasselblad finally decided that digital photography could
match the picture quality their cameras achieved using traditional/analog film
and started to manufacture digital options for their cameras.

When I look at the pictures from the moon I start to understand why they held
a stiff upper lip for so many years.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad#Hasselblad_cameras_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad#Hasselblad_cameras_in_space)

~~~
marincounty
As a photographer, I sometimes think my complete switch to digital might have
been a mistake. I can't call myself a professional photohrapher because I make
very little money off my pictures.

That said, I wish I didn't get rid of my old cameras, and 2.8 lenses. I wish I
still had my BW darkroom still set up in my closet.

My pictures are all color now. They are technically fine, but my older
pictures just look more interesting.

~~~
yakult
I'm a complete amateur at photography, but can you give me some details in the
difference in outcomes between your BW setup and just passing your color
pictures through a BW filter?

------
KaiserPro
China releases "true colour HD images of the moon"

 _Clicks link_

Sees animated gif of said images

 _facepalm_

~~~
Flow
Here's one of the pics in high resolution:
[https://i.imgur.com/9dfK0pK.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9dfK0pK.jpg)

~~~
rplnt
What kind of rock is that?

~~~
sjwright
Moon rock[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock)

------
frostburg
Those are interesting, but the quality doesn't really seems to improve much,
if at all, from the 70mm analog pictures taken with Hasselblads during the
manned missions.

~~~
mattbettinson
I believe that was 120 film. And yes - those looked incredible.

~~~
KaiserPro
120mm is about 6000 x 6000 pixels. (depending on film stock.)

36 megapixels. which is >> than the 2megapixels of HD

~~~
ekianjo
You can go much higher than that. Medium format for example is considered to
be between 60 to 80 megapixels.

~~~
frostburg
Not really; I actually own a film Hasselblad, I'm somewhat familiar with the
issues. You can get really impressive figures by using film meant for document
reproduction to shoot high contrast test targets, but this doesn't really
translate to high resolution for real subjects. There are also significant
problems with alignment, film planarity, grain (detail can still be gleaned
even after grain starts being visible, but the signal to noise ratio gets
progressively worse) etc. that further reduce theoretical resolution. For that
kind of detail you need at least 4x5 inch large format.

~~~
ekianjo
I think it's a debated point. I have seen multiple folks comparing, with
proper scanners, the resolution of medium formats vs digital pictures and
found that the resolution of medium format was higher with quality films. If
you use a bad scanner, if your film is of a poor grade, your experience will
vary.

~~~
frostburg
(sorry for the late reply) What you're saying is not strictly false, but it's
also not very useful for practical photography. High grade "practical" color
film (ektar 100, provia 100f, velvia 50), shot extremely carefully with a
vacuum back and drum scanned wet will out-resolve high end 35mm digital but
lose against modern medium format digital backs; 6x7 or 6x9 with extremely
good lenses (mamiya 7 system, alpas) might beat last-gen digital backs in some
scenarios. Impractical 3 iso bw microfilm copy film stock (techpan, chs 20)
used to shot something standing extremely still with an adapted
photolithography lens might win against medium format backs, except if you
need color, but at that point you're actually competing against scanning backs
for reproduction work and the scanning back is going to prevail.

------
sergiotapia
Goes to show how absolutely fearless, or better yet brave, the men and women
who fly into space are. Look at that pitch black sky, it gave me the willies.
It must do something to the psyche of the average person for sure.

~~~
Paul_S
Another possible reaction to the infinite void:

"They saw the staggering jewels of the night in their infinite dust and their
minds sang with fear. For a while they flew on, motionless against the starry
sweep of the Galaxy, itself motionless against the infinite sweep of the
Universe. And then they turned round. “It’ll have to go,” the men of Krikkit
said as they headed back for home. On the way back they sang a number of
tuneful and reflective songs on the subjects of peace, justice, morality,
culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms."

    
    
        Life, the Universe and Everything

------
akavel
Quoting a fragment of the last paragraph:

 _" With [...] private companies planning to profit off of lunar resources,
the moon is about to become a much busier destination."_

Are there really such plans? Can anybody explain what the article refers to
here specifically?

~~~
Symmetry
Sure, for instance ULA has plans to mine the moon for propellant. Here's the
short version but you can google "Cislunar 1000" for more.

[https://imgur.com/a/473uB](https://imgur.com/a/473uB)

------
muddyrivers
Here is the story of Chang'e and Houyi, for the curious.

[https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chinese_Stories/Houyi_and_Chan...](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chinese_Stories/Houyi_and_Chang%27e)

------
hellotoby
I made a quick VR version of the panorama* (using aframe.io) if anyone's
interested.

[http://tobyvervaart.com.au/moon/](http://tobyvervaart.com.au/moon/)

* caveats: probably not to the correct scale

~~~
Mizza
Beat me to it! :D

------
coin
-1 for techcrunch.com website

I'd love to pinchzoom on the photos, but techcrunch has disabled it

------
matt-attack
Looks remarkably similar to the old black & white photos.

~~~
Avshalom
Actually a lot of the old photos were color. Thats the problem with the moon:
grey on grey landscape.

~~~
monochromatic
> Actually a lot of the old photos were color.

Couldn't help thinking of this:

[http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-
strips.blogspot.com/2011/11/c...](http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-
strips.blogspot.com/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html)

------
sandworm101
Title suggestion: not _of_ the moon, but _from_ the moon.

Credit where due. This isn't footage from afar, but from something standing on
the moon.

------
NelsonMinar
Three cheers for Emily Lakdawalla and the Planetary Society. They do amazing
work making this kind of astronomy accessible and understandable to the
general public.

------
lacoolj
Even in something like a moon landing with space and power limitations, it's
2016. We have the technology to take video and at least store it and upload it
later.

There is no real reason these couldn't be an HD video instead (or in addition
to).

~~~
nabla9
Except the limited scientific value.

Japanese did flyby around the moon in 2007 and recorded a video.

------
baltcode
The impact ejecta rock (pyramid rock) looks like there are lines. Are those
lines from erosion or sedimentation layers? I thought neither of these would
happen without an atmosphere or water.

~~~
Achshar
Erosion does happen on the moon but from solar radiation instead.

------
qb45
It's amazing that there is just so much of junk rock flying all over the place
and landing there.

------
jetskindo
Am I the only one who,can never read tech crunch on mobile because it looks
like this:

[http://i.imgur.com/OCQbcnL.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/OCQbcnL.jpg)

~~~
stordoff
Is that on Andorid? It was working fine for me on Windows 10 Phone/Microsoft
Edge, but I've seen other sites mess up in similar ways on Edge.

~~~
bla2
Works for for me on Android (chrome)

------
speeder
Those look cool!

Also I wonder, if someone ever release HD pictures of the stuff the manned
landings left behind, will people stop believing that moon landing was a Hoax?

~~~
yincrash
There are already laser retroreflectors on the moon that a sufficiently
powerful laser and sensor can detect. This is still not enough for people to
stop believing it's a hoax.

~~~
burningion
I realize we're all trying to make fun of a strawman who doesn't believe in
the purity of science, but that's an unfair characterization of the arguments
made against the _manned_ lunar landing.

Just taking a look at the Wikipedia page for the arguments gives you a good
idea for the arguments made:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theori...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories)

If you read through a bit, you'll see a few arguments that people propose,
that don't refute laser reflectors being on the surface.

Again, I realize we're supposed to be piling on a strawman here, but I hope we
can all maintain open minds.

~~~
yincrash
I would like more clarifications on the sort of arguments that allow for
retroreflectors to legitimately be on the moon without the moon landing. I was
not making fun of anyone; at most, I have frustration and confusion about how
the belief of a hoax can exist in the face of repeatable verifiable proof that
we put something on the moon.

The section on that wikipedia page on retroreflectors does not mention any
theories that allows for it to be there, and glossing over the page a bit, it
states that "the foremost idea is that the whole manned landing program was a
hoax from start to end."

I would appreciate a discussion of any argument you have found that allows for
retroreflectors.

~~~
burningion
The argument about retroreflectors is right there on the page, although it's
buried if you don't have the arguments raised previously in the Wikipedia
article.

The main argument is that the lunar landings weren't _manned_ for _one or
more_ of the landings. And indeed, right there on the page, it says:

> Smaller retroreflectors were also put on the Moon by the Russians; they were
> attached to the _unmanned lunar rovers_ Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.

The existence of the Russian retroreflectors shows reflectors could be
deployed without _human_ intervention.

And further:

> Lick Observatory attempted to detect from Apollo 11's retroreflector while
> Armstrong and Aldrin were still on the Moon but did not succeed until August
> 1, 1969.[197] The Apollo 14 astronauts deployed a retroreflector on February
> 5, 1971, and McDonald Observatory detected it the same day.

The argument here is that if the retroreflectors were deployed by Apollo 11,
they should have been detectable within the day, not 10 days after their
supposed _human caused_ deployment.

Again, this is just the argument presented, not an endorsement.

------
perseusprime11
Isn't moon black and white. What's the point of color pictures?

~~~
whelp
If the pictures aren't in colors how do you know the moon is black and white?

