[HN Gopher] Apollo Remastered ___________________________________________________________________ Apollo Remastered Author : bentaber Score : 69 points Date : 2023-06-14 20:32 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (kottke.org) (TXT) w3m dump (kottke.org) | akiselev wrote: | I believe all of the new scans are available here: | https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums | TylerE wrote: | Those date from 2019, so clearly not. The quality of the few I | sampled is also nothing special. | akiselev wrote: | According to the author's bio [1], he was remastering photos | of Neil Armstrong in _2019_ for NASA for the 50th anniversary | of Apollo 11 so clearly the timing lines up. Multiple sources | on NASA and elsewhere point to that Flikr gallery. | | _> The quality of the few I sampled is also nothing | special._ | | The ones in the TFA are _remastered_ - color correct among | other things. The ones in the Flikr are the unprocessed | versions of Apollo Hasselblad photography scanned by NASA 's | Johnson Space Center. You can download the original | 4000x4000+ resolution scans from Flikr. | | [1] https://www.apolloremastered.com/bio | sponaugle wrote: | From that site: "The raw output from the digital scan of a | 70mm Hasselblad frame, is a huge 1.3GB, 16-bit TIFF file. | At approximately 11,000 pixels square, a single image would | require a 12-foot x 12-foot computer monitor to display the | whole image at standard resolution. " | | The Flikr images must be jpg conversions of the original | TIFFs, certainly in an attempt to reduce file sizes. I'm | not sure where the 11,000 comes from. The JPGs are | 4400x4600. Perhaps the original TIFFs were 11,000x11,000 | pix. | porphyra wrote: | And best of all, like other works of the US government, it's | public domain! | contrarian1234 wrote: | Is it? It's definitely not made immediately clear on their | website: https://www.apolloremastered.com/the-project | | Why are they on flickr and not NASA.gov as usual? | porphyra wrote: | Not sure, but I checked the licenses of a couple of photos | on flickr and they were public domain. | gmiller123456 wrote: | In the US, government organizations are not allowed to | copyright their work. They can, however, obtain works that | were copyrighted by someone else. But pretty much | everything coming out of NASA is public domain, though they | don't put a lot of effort into publicising that fact. | | https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-u-s- | governme... | netsharc wrote: | These look like to be the non-enhanced scans. Compare | https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/217878648... | and | https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/70f4b600092729ee3a719066227d7... | (from the article | https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/26/apollo-space... | ) | [deleted] | ConanRus wrote: | [dead] | hex4def6 wrote: | > Inspected, embossed and hand signed by the artist | | Wow, they got the Apollo 15 crew to sign these? Awesome! There | are some technical / logistical issues with that, but I'm sure | they managed to overcome them... | | Snark aside, I'm not really sure how running restoration on | public domain photographs gives you authorship / copyright | ownership over them. | grout58 wrote: | That's not what I expected to see :) | WirelessGigabit wrote: | > Inspected, embossed and hand signed by the artist | | What? Since when is a film developer an artist? | | If he would've taken the photos himself and then did the post- | processing... fine. But not like this. | | I'm reading this page: | https://www.apolloremastered.com/shop/p/s65-30427 and it doesn't | even mention the original photographer. | gmiller123456 wrote: | >Since when is a film developer an artist? | | Developing and printing photographs absolutley is an art form. | Many books on developing and printing are quick to point out | that Ansel Adams was celebrated more for what he did in the | dark room than for the subject matter or composition. | Arainach wrote: | A number of these shots are composites from multiple source | images. | | Photo editing is an art and a technical skill all on its own. A | print with a separate photographer and editor has two artists, | not one. | contrarian1234 wrote: | Well it's a thinly veiled ad... and you can't really easily get | digital copies - which somehow feels weird/wrong for space stuff. | You typically can get that in full resolution directly from NASA. | | Is the web interface representative of the final quality? | | Just looking at an example: | https://www.apolloremastered.com/shop/p/as15-82-11056-to-110... | | Even mildly zoomed in the image looks quite crummy and blurry. | Fine for a postcard, but not to hang on you wall | | It's also a bit weird that some dude manages to somehow get semi- | exclusive access to photos made by the US gov't and can then | charge hundreds of pounds for them | dabluecaboose wrote: | I had written this comment almost verbatim before getting | distracted at work. | | There's gotta be some public-facing way to access these images. | NASA wouldn't just let any jabroni access these highly guarded | films to sell them, they have to have gotten something out of | it for them (and by extension the public) | | EDIT: Clarifying since it sounded like I was calling the guy a | jabroni, didn't intend that | netsharc wrote: | This shop where I got my copy from is still selling them for | 46 Euro a pop: https://www.buecher.de/shop/raumfahrt/apollo- | remastered/saun... | | I bought it after reading The Guardian's excerpt with a lot | of great pictures: | https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/26/apollo- | space... | | > Digital scans of the transparencies are often underexposed | and difficult to process. The images shown here are derived | from new, high-resolution scans of the original film, | painstakingly restored using image-enhancement technology. | | I think the "jabroni" was hired to make the best quality | reproduction out of these films for NASA's own archive, my | guess was he probably negotiated a deal where he'd be allowed | to publish these photos. | | I do wonder if public domain means they must be accessible | online too? | | Edit: on the Guardian excerpt, the photo credits include ASU, | I found this site which talks about their work thawing the | films and doing high-resolution, high bitrate (e.g. 14-bit | grayscale) scans: http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/about, and | this site also offers about 26000 scans of the films. | | But the ASU scans are still not enhanced, e.g. the cover of | the book, AS09-24-3665 from: | | - Flickr, 2015 upload: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projecta | polloarchive/217878648... | | - ASU scan: http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/Apollo/9/Has | selblad%205... | | - Apollo Remastered (Andy Saunder's work): https://i.guim.co. | uk/img/media/70f4b600092729ee3a719066227d7... | toomuchtodo wrote: | https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/index.html | | https://www.nasa.gov/missions | | https://images.nasa.gov/ | | If you're unable to find something you know should be there, | a FOIA request should fill the gap. | [deleted] | Arainach wrote: | Hundreds of hours of labor (and the hours developing | professional skills prior to that labor) are not free. Art- | grade photo printing is not free. | | The book is huge in all 3 dimensions. Nearly every page is a | full-page photo print. It is a work of art, an artifact, and | well worth the price. I love my copy. | arrrg wrote: | Ads are someone being paid to write/publish about something. | Are you claiming that's happening here? | | Also, I'm pretty sure a lot of the original photos are simply | blurry (from motion) or slightly out of focus. Some of the | other previews are much sharper. | | Check out the beard: | https://www.apolloremastered.com/shop/p/as07-04-1596 | | Luckily photos don't have to tack sharp to be great. In fact, | many awesome photos (on or off planet) aren't sharp at all. I | don't care at all about the obvious motion blur in this great | photo, it even seems fitting: | https://www.apolloremastered.com/shop/p/as11-36-5390 | | (Though I would agree, you picked one that would be greatly | helped by being tack sharp and where it being out of focus | detracts from it. I still think the composition is great and | that's probably why it made it in.) | _caw wrote: | That must be a web quality pic. | | The ones in his book are far higher quality. Too bad I can't | nail the book to my wall.. | throw0101b wrote: | > _Well it 's a thinly veiled ad..._ | | Jason Kottke has been curating links on the inter-tubes for | twenty-five years (1998). He simply links to stuff he thinks | other will find cool: the fact that some of those items are | purchasable does not mean the post is an ad. | | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kottke | | His posts on the Apollo program go back to 2005: | | * https://kottke.org/tag/Apollo/3 | | Here's another post on a book you can purchase by Edward Tufte: | | * https://kottke.org/01/09/edward-tufte-author-of-three | | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte | | Was that post an ad? | jjcm wrote: | Is there a link to the high res photos? | evolve2k wrote: | Ha fully expected to read more about the reddit saga. | nivekney wrote: | _oh they are finally replacing the reddit backend with their | own!?_ | | _nope it 's the moon._ | joecot wrote: | I've been very much hoping that Apollo and the rest just | pivot to being amazing Lemmy/kbin clients, with multiple | instances pre-configured to use. That would be the biggest | coup of all. Which is exactly what I thought had happened | when I saw a title of "Apollo Remastered". | | 'Oh, you're going to price us all out? You don't care about | third party client users? That's fine, I guess you won't care | if hundreds of thousands of users suddenly have a client for | a different site installed when they go to open reddit.' | dramatic-cable wrote: | [flagged] | _caw wrote: | I highly recommend this book, which I received as a birthday | present (hint, for your friends or loved ones who are into space | stuff.) | | Every page is filled with these georgeous, highly detailed | pictures, and a running commentary from the astronauts or author. | | You won't be disappointed. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-14 23:01 UTC)