And, why is the picture quality of the 1972 image better than the one taken in 2026?
>>532365656Both fake
>>532365656Probably the difference between actual film and taking a digital image that is inherently compressed.
top is an image of the day side.bottom is an image of the night side.
>>532365656Don't worry, this thread will have all sorts of photography experts in here to tell you why these two cartoon images are real because they are composites or some shit
>>532365930Idk about the old one but the Artemis one is a single shot from a Nikon
>>532365656Early days the artists had to rebuild the earth from multiple photos. None of the nice looking full earth pics nasa provided were just one photo. If you took a full pic of earth 50 000 km away it would have looked shit. So in a way, pics of earth are fake.
>>532365930Earth isn't real? Of you think it should be flat on four elephants on top of a giant turtle?
It's literally just white balance.
>>532365656>What changed?Photoshop has improved.https://old.bitchute.com/video/3V0W03P6xabD/
>>532365656The Artemis picture was taken from a ten year old consumer level DSLR, with it being nighttime on that side of the Earth with a full moon just over exposed to a ridiculous level.
>>532365656Newest image is taken of the night side of earth
>>532365656Film has always been high definition.
>>532365767>compressed>RAW image from Nikon D5>compressedLeave your "probable" theories for yourself. Not to mention the difference in dynamic range on film vs digital. Film is ancient technology, long surpassed by digital.
>>532365656Both look like AI renders? Who said AI didn't exist in 1972?
>>532365806 Thank you. Are people on this board really so dumb they don't see that or is it just willful ignorance
>>532365656Different image, different artist, different technology. The first one was painted, the second one was computer generated.
>>532373333Checked.
>>532365656Because the 1972 was shot on Kodak Ektachrome MS SO-368. Digital is horrible compared to film. Welcome to the reality us photographers have to live in.
>>532365656why cant they show a constant video pointing back to the earth while they leave orbit?that seems like something you would want to recordOr how about a camera on the front showing the approach to the moon?NOPEyou get 1 shitty CGI photo to prove they are in spacelaughable when you think about it and a shame that NPCs can't ask these simple questionsspace is fake and gay
>>532370846What?Why is there an anti-film shill?How?Everyone knows the highest fidelity images are black and white on film. Do you even learn?
>>532375768>I enjoy lack of sharpness, 10-13mpx equivalent resolution, sub-par dynamic range, and 20th century post-processing capabilityHipsters were done and dusted by 2013, why are you still clinging on, anon?
>>532376067>NASA thread>no fucking exposure to NASA>no understanding of how pictures are coloredYou should go learn how shit your phone really is. Or look into anyone that takes photography seriously.>confusing technical experts for hipsters
>>532376337>has no arguments>spergs outMany such cases.
>>532375591uuh sorry chud but a freemason said he walked on the moon and a kike on tv later confirmed it so its real
>>532365656You are clinically retarded and cannot tell quality from your own arse.
>>532366098now post the lightroom metadata
>>532365656They had a more professional graphic design team in the 70s. These days, yids don't give a fuck.
>>532365656Left side of the earth's sphere is you're answer
>>532376337Where the fuck did you disappear to, faggot? Care to elaborate on your unhinged ramblings?
>>5323656561972 is daytime and the new one is moonglow (night).
>>532365742If its fake then what is it?
>>532378442It costs too much money to make something that will just be a throw away image. You need to think of the profits from selling this image as a poster or a stamp. They are stuck this far in the past.
>>532365656suns shinning on second pic from around 9 o'clock but 1 to 5 o'clock is brightman you all some dumb bunch of retards
Maybe it's not the picture maybe it's the quality of the earth that's declined and that's why 1972 looks better?
>>532365656>What changed?fakes are now better
What I want to know is why they wouldn't install one of these on the rear of the craft?
>>532379947Sorry, forgot pic.
>>532365656Maybe chemtrails spreading out?
>>532365656>And, why is the picture quality of the 1972 image better than the one taken in 2026?Apollo 17 had the finest lensesArtemis II used an iphone 17
>>532373333Imagine being a poltard but still trusting known liars.
the earth is dying everywhere, forests, coral reefs, everything
>>532365767It's a night shot - that's why you can see stars, atmosphere and aurora. That kind of sensitivity wouldn't even be possible with film. But the scattered ambient light and volumetric effects make it look less defined.
>>532373064>Are people on this board really so dumbYes. Also it seems the entire board is being slid and bot spammed constantly to kill any valuable discussion.
>>532380992
>>532365656HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>532365742So if this is fake, then is the Sun fake? The other planets?Is the reason why the US government is refusing to release the UFO docs because they don't exist? Are we all living in a simulator? Does anyone or anything truly exist?
>>532382968>retarded>phonefag (covered by point 1 actually)>dumb as shit "AI", but still somehow smarter than the faggot anon>can't even conceive his unbounded mental retardation>somehow solves the captcha (this is your last chance to think things over)>"Submit"
>>532365656Look how far Africa moved East in just one-half century.Global warming deniers BTFO.
>>532370846>Film is ancient technology, long surpassed by digitalThe children on this board sometimes I swear.
>>532370846I wouldn't call surpassed, film is amazing in its own way, and does things that are impossible to match on digital. But the difference in these photos is largely white balance, contrast, and the simple fact that one is a daytime photo, and the other nighttime.
>>532384287Besides more highlights headroom and lack of moire in some specific situations with some specific sensors without AA filters I can't see any benefits to film.
>>532365656the current one has hdralso, we have like a million pictures of earth from space every day
Space is fake and gayEarth is flatThere is no way to pass the firmament because there is nothing behind the firmamentThe rocket was empty and landed somewhere in the ocean
>>532365656this point here are chinese vessels predating the argentine sea, it's larger than buenos aires
>>532365656The earth is flat and stationary with a dome. NASA is a complete and total fraud and so are both of those heavily altered pictures.
>>532385238I mean you basically can't overexpose it, that's a little easy to dismiss with ""more headroom".
>>532385633The ones we have are stitched composites from a bunch of satellites. What makes these special is that they were taken with a single exposure on a regular camera.
>>532365656looks like it was taken with shit hundred ISO because there was not enough light
>>532388551>looks like it was taken with shit hundred ISO because there was not enough lightWell spotted!This photo was taken with 1/4 second exposure and 51,200 ISO, EXIF data herehttps://images.nasa.gov/details/art002e000192All of the light from the Earth is actually reflected from the Moon, since the Sun was entirely behind the Earth when the photo was takenYou can even see both the Northern and Southern auroras in the original image
>>532365656If you believe this or what NASA says I'm sorry to break it to you but you might be retarded.%100 Lies now stop looking at IRAN WAR KILLING THE WORLD!!JUST WAIT FOR THE UFO FILES TO AWE US NEXT!!! 0o0oohhhh ahhhhh wow!
>>532365806>>532366098Looks like this checks out.
>>532376067>lack of sharpness, 10-13mpx equivalent resolution, sub-par dynamic range,yes? none of those things are worth the trade if you are now forced to do "film emulation" in post to make it look high dollar
>>532365656earf is dying
