Sure, but the post is saying subsequent to the Blue Marble, not all photos ever taken. It's reasonable to say that every NASA photo after 2012 has been digitally processed and isn't strictly a single photo. Composites are common, and you're dealing with noisy space stuff here, it makes sense.
Even if ut is a composite, that does not mean it is not a real photo.
If I take 5 pictures of a landscape each with a bit of overlap with the last and then make one big panorama out of it it is a composite, still makes this a real photo.
And if we want to go into the details of digital photography every digital photo is a composite of a red, a green and a blue picture. So the only real photos would be film based.
No. The source you gave is for "A Blue Marble" image. The original blue marble image usually refers to a photograph of the Earth taken by the Apollo 17 crew in 1972, with a regular camera.
18 replies
Takes a video of a "UFO" with their digital camer on a handheld computer that runs a closed source OS and the camera app uses AI to enhance the video
"REAL VIDEO OF UFO!!!!"
NASA using old ass tech to basically take pretty raw data and turn it into a very basic picture
"FAKE!! CGI!!!"
Anything in the air can be a UFO if you’re an idiot
Anything on the ground can be a UFO of you're even more of an idiot.
bro holy fuck there's a stack of motherships in my cupboard
I see a lot of Unidentified Fuzzy Objects when I'm drunk
What do people get out of publicly identifying themselves as morons like this?
I'm pretty sure the photos from early space missions including Apollo were shot on film, not digital camera...
These people think Photoshop existed in the 60s and 70s 😂
Well the soviets were masters already in the '30-ish
Sure, but the post is saying subsequent to the Blue Marble, not all photos ever taken. It's reasonable to say that every NASA photo after 2012 has been digitally processed and isn't strictly a single photo. Composites are common, and you're dealing with noisy space stuff here, it makes sense.
Wasn't the very first sci-fi film a staged moon landing? 🤔
That's why their theory is that Kubrick filmed the landing in Hollywood. To be fair, the special effects in 2001 are top notch, and that's from '68.
But sure, I mean nebulas don't actually look all neon and fluorescent by telescope either, so technically yes?
The fact that nasa did fake some promo space footage sure doesn't help quell the theorists lol
Isn't it plainly true that The Blue Marble is a composite? Source: NASA
Even if ut is a composite, that does not mean it is not a real photo.
If I take 5 pictures of a landscape each with a bit of overlap with the last and then make one big panorama out of it it is a composite, still makes this a real photo. And if we want to go into the details of digital photography every digital photo is a composite of a red, a green and a blue picture. So the only real photos would be film based.
Film is just manipulating atoms!
You hear me? The photo was manipulated!
Didn't say it wasn't real, just that it was a composite, at least the modern one that I cite.
No. The source you gave is for "A Blue Marble" image. The original blue marble image usually refers to a photograph of the Earth taken by the Apollo 17 crew in 1972, with a regular camera.
Hmm, the OP image could refer to either. Or did they specify?