Hey, /sci/. I'm a brainlet and a globecuck, but my friend

1st picture moon painted on the wall
2nd picture actual photo from space

>>8773783
And why do you say the 1st photo is fake, and the 2nd is true, when they said that both are accurate?

File: IMG_2685.png (126KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1280x960px

Hopefully this will help.

>>8773783
spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo8/html/as08-14-2383.html
>AS08-14-2383 was shot through a 250mm lens (moderately long telephoto). Telephoto lenses have the property of compressing the depth of field - making near and far objects appear closer together than they really are - and making rough surfaces look oddly toy-like.
>AS08-14-2383 was shot by a 70mm Hasselblad medium format camera set to a 1/250th of a second exposure and stopped all the way down to f/11 to get a decent shot of the Earth.

Alright, for the sake of argument we can use this photo instead of the cgi one in the OP image.

>>8773811
/thread

File: timeline.png (28KB, 588x218px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 588x218px

My best guess is that it has something to do with both of them being really far away and heavily magnified. I can't be assed to figure out if that would actually change anything

>>8773771
>CGI recreation
My best guess is that the second image was intended to show the size difference of Earth and the moon. Its not a real image so theres no reason to assume its to scale in any way.

>>8773771
> What I want to know is, why is there such a drastic difference in the sizes of Earth? Has it to do with the lens or something?

The larger picture was taken from really far away from both the earth and the moon, so their sizes look vaguely similar. The smaller picture was taken from the moon's surface, so the moon looks much larger than the earth because the moon is much closer to the person taking the picture.

>>8773888
It's not a picture from the surface, it's from lunar orbit. End result is still the same though.

What do you think about Astronomy & Astrophotography?

Send him the same picture but with the earth and sun

File: test1.jpg (570KB, 1159x1200px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1159x1200px

OP here again, thanks for helping, everyone. I decided to make this graph for them.

File: lklöäö.png (1MB, 1322x888px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1322x888px

OP here again trying to debunk another maymay. I was wondering how to explain the sharpness of the background. Is it because of motion parallax or what?

>>8774100
Nice, thankke.

>>8775102
the sharpness is due to the quality of the camera and the exposure time I believe.

think about it this way - we can get crisp movie quality film when a car is filming another car zooming down the highway, right?

well this is just a faster car on a higher highway

>>8775102
Sharpness of the background is because the earth is huge and very far away (relative to day to day photography).
It's like how you can take sharp pictures of a mountain even in a car going 60mph

>>8773771
What is it with flattards and their inability to understand how cameras work?

>>8775102
Exposure time.

>>8775114
>>8775116
>>8775157
Exposure time to take the photo, noted. But the earth would seem to move quite slowly from the camera's perspective, and that effect is called motion parallax, r-right?

>>8775150
People seem to move from one extreme to another. I think flatters believed everything they saw and were told without any grain of salt and then due to some event switched to the other side where they think everything is fake.