David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
Threads merged, title updated.
How does Hubble Telescope capture it's images [and film imaging in space]?
-
A
- Thread starter ted_smith
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 100 TMAX Kodak Professional 4x5 50 sheet boxes 04/2019 exp
- Started by opPaulT
-
For Sale FS: Hansa 6x9 Wooden Field Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Anba Ikeda 4x5 Wooden Field Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Durst NEDONEG Negative Carrier
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
AFAIK, Jim, the Blad is in orbit. But then so is all of the human waste from orbital missions. All shuttles have to be decontaminated on return. 
So, you are welcome to the blad.
PE
So, you are welcome to the blad.
PE
Hello everybody...
Does anybody know anything about the photosystems of the Ranger missions? IIRC, these probes were used to map the lunar surface and all of them crashed on the moon (on purpose). Given the fact that they would have an accelerated descend to the lunar surface, would there be any time to develop, scan and transmit images? How was it done?
Does anybody know anything about the photosystems of the Ranger missions? IIRC, these probes were used to map the lunar surface and all of them crashed on the moon (on purpose). Given the fact that they would have an accelerated descend to the lunar surface, would there be any time to develop, scan and transmit images? How was it done?
They used a method whose name shall not be mentioned here on APUG.
PE
PE
Ah, it's the D word 
Real pioneers then!
Thanks a lot PE.
Real pioneers then!Thanks a lot PE.
Now that these threads were merged I saw the second post in this thread, regarding the method of scanning film processed in space using the zero and one number set. I wanted to point out that the Orbiter was indeed a fully analog system; ie the image data from the film negataives was transmitted, received and viewed on earth in the analog domain.
The Ranger missions (before the Orbiter missions) used analog acquisition and transmission of images, like a TV camera.
Like the Ranger, the Orbiter's last close-ups of the moon were intended to be taken on the way in from a crash landing. I guess the photo-processing station needed to remain intact...still figuring that one out.
The Russians tried to develop MANNED spy satellites back in the early days. How's that for analog? There was just a PBS documentary on this pretty fascinating idea.
Just to elaborate, the TV monitor on the earth was presumably similar in resolution for the Ranger and Orbiter missions (and as pointed out, the screen was photographed with a 35mm camera, to make prints). The advantage of the Orbiter was that the images on the TV on earth were basically an enlargement of a portion of the moon scene captured on the film. The whole picture was not seen until the 35mm film on earth was processed and printed, and the photographs were pieced together. Thus they improved the resolution from Ranger to Orbiter, using the same analog TV style transmission of the image data back to earth.
When you understand it you can see that the in-space processing of the film was a very, very clever thing to do to improve the resolution of what we would get back at earth.
What they don't tell you on the internet is the failed system they tried in between Ranger and Orbiter. Basically it used a film camera but instead of processing the film, a mechanical device automatically placed the exposed film in a Kodak pre-paid mailer. (Ha Ha)
When you understand it you can see that the in-space processing of the film was a very, very clever thing to do to improve the resolution of what we would get back at earth.
What they don't tell you on the internet is the failed system they tried in between Ranger and Orbiter. Basically it used a film camera but instead of processing the film, a mechanical device automatically placed the exposed film in a Kodak pre-paid mailer. (Ha Ha)
The processing was not analog as it was too slow. I watched the live transmission of the crash landing on the moon and the last frame was sent real-time and was only 1/2 frame as the craft landed on the moon during transmission. The shot was taken from a few hundred feet up and sent immediately.
NASA wanted to get images up to the last second.
PE
Just to elaborate, the TV monitor on the earth was presumably similar in resolution for the Ranger and Orbiter missions (and as pointed out, the screen was photographed with a 35mm camera, to make prints). The advantage of the Orbiter was that the images on the TV on earth were basically an enlargement of a portion of the moon scene captured on the film. The whole picture was not seen until the 35mm film on earth was processed and printed, and the photographs were pieced together. Thus they improved the resolution from Ranger to Orbiter, using the same analog TV style transmission of the image data back to earth.
When you understand it you can see that the in-space processing of the film was a very, very clever thing to do to improve the resolution of what we would get back at earth.
What they don't tell you on the internet is the failed system they tried in between Ranger and Orbiter. Basically it used a film camera but instead of processing the film, a mechanical device automatically placed the exposed film in a Kodak pre-paid mailer. (Ha Ha)
When you understand it you can see that the in-space processing of the film was a very, very clever thing to do to improve the resolution of what we would get back at earth.
What they don't tell you on the internet is the failed system they tried in between Ranger and Orbiter. Basically it used a film camera but instead of processing the film, a mechanical device automatically placed the exposed film in a Kodak pre-paid mailer. (Ha Ha)
I don't follow. The immediate ('live') TV broadcast from the Ranger was analog. If anything, a 1960s era A/D converter would have slowed it to a crawl on each end.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a feeling that the Ranger probes had a much more vertical trajectory to the lunar surface than the Orbiters. That should also be the reason to use electronic (not digital I suppose) cameras, as there would be no time to do any processing, scanning and transmission (with such a low rate anyway). I *assume* that orbiters kept shooting, etc until the end. If it crashed, it crashed. The last photo of any Orbiter probe must have been from a quite high altitude.
PS This youtube video might have some footage from the Rangers. Skip to about 3mins 20secs to see what I mean. It's a musical video by the way.
You're such a lucky man! All that time spent at cape Canaveral must have been a... ehh, uhhh, ohh (lost for words)
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 257
- Format
- 35mm
Sony did in fact make an analog, but fully electronic still camera back in the early 1980s. It was called the Mavica, and pictures were recorded on a tape and viewed on a TV set. I'm not sure that anything could be printed out, though. Quality was probably not the best. And I am sure the thing was REALLY expensive back then. So it never really caught on. Sony actually used the Mavica name for quite some time. But all later Mavica models were digital. Only the original one was analog. In any case, this camera proves that analog does NOT inevitably mean film.
They used digital imaging on those moon "crash landings" and transmitted live with only a 2" or thereabouts delay. If it were analog, they would have had process time and scan time.
Basically, it was a slow motion digital motion picture capture device with direct transmission is the way I had it explained to me. And, it was fast.
We saw the moon rush up at us and then the final frame froze at about 1/2 screen with one side moon rocks, a bit blurry and the other side static.
PE
Not when it is video (which is what the "vi" stands for), no.
Video never meant film. A thing that doesn't need proving.
Interesting though how we have turned full circle, from stopping videos to produce stills, to the still cameras of today that record videos.
Round and round and round and round ...
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry then, my information was incorrrect. Thanks for the correction.
The signal I saw appeared to be digital including pixellization and that is why the person who discussed this with us was convinced and told us it was digital. My error for not confirming it.
As for the Mavica, I remember that the Mavica was B&W and Kodak showed a color version right after the first Mavica. The B&W Mavica was taken off the market. Now that I know. I've held the Kodak camera.
PE
The signal I saw appeared to be digital including pixellization and that is why the person who discussed this with us was convinced and told us it was digital. My error for not confirming it.
As for the Mavica, I remember that the Mavica was B&W and Kodak showed a color version right after the first Mavica. The B&W Mavica was taken off the market. Now that I know. I've held the Kodak camera.
PE
From what I could tell, the Mariner (designed around 1965) was one of the first satellites to process digital imagery. It used an analog TV camera to acquire the images. This data was then digitized for tape storage on the satellite, prior to transmission back to earth. The system used six bit encoding (thus giving only 63 shades of gray).
That, in fact, may be one of the first photosystems ever to incorporate digital storage. Of interest here on APUG because it defines a point on the technology timeline where space exploration imagery ceased to be an entirely analog system.
Also, as early as 1969 (perhaps earlier??) Ranger photographs WERE analyzed on earth via computer (presumably after digitization). (Thomas C. Rindficisch, "Getting More Out of Ranger Pictures by Computer," Astronautics and Aeronautics, January 1969)
So, you may be correct PE, you may have seen digitally processed images.
That, in fact, may be one of the first photosystems ever to incorporate digital storage. Of interest here on APUG because it defines a point on the technology timeline where space exploration imagery ceased to be an entirely analog system.
Also, as early as 1969 (perhaps earlier??) Ranger photographs WERE analyzed on earth via computer (presumably after digitization). (Thomas C. Rindficisch, "Getting More Out of Ranger Pictures by Computer," Astronautics and Aeronautics, January 1969)
So, you may be correct PE, you may have seen digitally processed images.
Last edited by a moderator:
When ranger began their series of photos and crashed on the moon, it spelled the death of the Bimat project. Bimat was much better in resolution, but very very slow. I remember them shutting the Bimat project labs and meeting with our division. We then got their lab space and they moved to another building and then just kind of vanished.
Grant was trying to speed it up by devising a heat processed single sheet film, but the problem was not the processing, it was the time to process then scan as well as the power to heat the equipment. Essentially, the argument went that the video could be transmitted directly. And that is where the argument came in that the signal was digital. Since we were working on digital capture, that was the assumption, but it must have been an analog signal.
Right after that, about the time of the Mavica, Kodak made their first digital color chip and camera. At the same time, they produced a color print material called "Electrocolor" which was based on a 3 color scan and dye transfer to a Titanox matrix on a paper support.
PE
Grant was trying to speed it up by devising a heat processed single sheet film, but the problem was not the processing, it was the time to process then scan as well as the power to heat the equipment. Essentially, the argument went that the video could be transmitted directly. And that is where the argument came in that the signal was digital. Since we were working on digital capture, that was the assumption, but it must have been an analog signal.
Right after that, about the time of the Mavica, Kodak made their first digital color chip and camera. At the same time, they produced a color print material called "Electrocolor" which was based on a 3 color scan and dye transfer to a Titanox matrix on a paper support.
PE
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Pretty amazing. They landed quite close to it and just walked over to inspect it. One of the things they did was to search for living bacteria, as the Surveyor was not heat sterilized back on earth. Checking to see if they were contaminating the moon with earthling microbes. Turns out they found some still-living bacteria but it was probably contamination during processing of the sample on earth.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |