Elon Musk: Where are the stars? And cut the crap with "exposure time"

Space is real bruh.

CGI is just CGI, and don't require to use an astronomical supercomputer.

Such a job (how to place some stars correctly) would had been very obvious as it would had need help from the astronomers community, for every picture.

It would imply too many loose ends. FAKE!

No satellites either.

Pull out ur camera and point it at the night sky... where are the stars?

If he wanted CREDIBILITY! he would have ordered to mount the two proper cameras, even if they costed 50K each!

This is pure CGI, but nobody can prove the trick, because most people is stupid and he knows. Genius!

GO BUY A TELESCOPE PUT A CAMERA IN IT RUNNING AT 30FPS AND SEE HOW MANY STARS YOU CAN SEE!!!
none

Elon Musk Unveils His Latest Taxpayer Boondoggle
It works like this:

1) He comes up with a big idea.

2) You pay for it.

3) He takes a huge cut.

4) It never becomes economically sustainable.

But that’s not the point. The point is putting extremely large amounts of money in Elon Musk’s pockets.

[link to www.nasamoonhoax.com]

^^^

most intelligent post in this thread.

/thread

Great

This is why they don't want you to have good view of space. I Heard NASA didn't do any live feeds for along time after this.

In the picture. Even with a cell phone camera. the stars are right there.

It's a common question.

no clouds in space

Are you for real man? How hard would it be to generate the right stars in the right place and photoshop them in for a pic or generate and plot them in real time for an animation? Fucking idiot...

Op is a complete idiot

Says cut the crap with "Exposure Time"

Obviously knows NOTHING about photography

Exposure time IS everything!

A star is a tiny point of light. Go outside tonight with your camera and capture the stars!

You require a long exposure time of about 1 to 2 seconds with shutter left open.

If they photo crew wants the car to be "exposed" to light and come in focus and not over or underexposed the shutter must be left open for a much shorter amount of time than to expose for stars

Only a HDR high dynamic range photo can achieve the goal of exposing for stars (dim light) and exposing for the car in the direct sun light. (bright)

Take 2 photos with different exposure times..

then merge them together in a computer

So, according to this video, wich gather a lot of opinions from different astronauts (ISS, etc.), you CAN'T SEE stars because there are so many of them that is almost impossible to focus on a particular star!

Good try! And the planets or Syrius?

If you can see it, you can capture them with a fucking space designed camera! Or are you telling to me that astronauts use iPhone cameras? WAKE UP!

This about sums up Noel Skum's modus operandi.

Skum had no input on the creation and implementation of PayPal.

He just had his bogus company absorbed by Confiniti, who owned PayPal at the time.

Nor in the design and creation of the Tesla electric car.

Skum was just a CIA front-man (well, maybe - I think Skum is an FtM tranny) who brought a bag of cash to Tesla Motors.

Skum was later sued by one of the actual founders of Tesla Motors, who accused him of defaming, debasing and generally ruining Tesla Motors value in the market.

Skum supposedly countersued, but the whole case was settled out of court, with an undisclosed payment of damages (Skum lost.)

So far, Skum, who professes to hate the idea of corporate welfare, has absorbed over 4.9 BILLION taxpayer shakedown dollahs!

Thanks for the "complete idiot" part.

There are TWO THINGS that are absolutely related:

1) Exposure time.
2) Sensor (or film) sensitivity.

And both are mathematically related with an inverse proportion. The greater the sensitivity of the sensor, the lesser the exposure time (or you FILL the sensor with photons).

But, I don't care anymore about this. Think whatever you want, photoman!


You assume that the camera that you use while being at vacations has the same quality than a military grade camera used for space photography.

anyone else notice.

All the cars mirrors are missing!

Stars are only visible (as is the sun) in an atmosphere that holds a modicum of water vapour. It focuses the beams of light you would not get in a vacuum. Look up Victor Schaubergers work on it, and then look into him in general.
This is not complex science. It is kindergarten.

"a space designed camera"????
LOL
STFU..







It IS photography 101: if you expose properly for daylight(sunlight) you are way undrexposing tiny pinpoints of starlight to register on the sensor or film.
Daylight exposure follows the "sunny 16" rule
In broad sunlight .the proper photo exposure is 1/ISO at f16.
If the Isois set at 400; proper exposure is 1/400th of a second at an aperture of F16.
Star light exposures run from full seconds to minutes.

For Moon "tards:

What's the proper exposure on the surface of the moon?

1/ISO at F16 !
(why?)
( IT IS ILLUMINATED BY BROAD, FULL, SUNLIGHT).
Hence no stars...

Uhmm....Hubble space telescope?
Is an optical telescope; it focuses just fine since the mirror correction was made.

I understand the whole most cameras can't pick up on the stars thing. But I just strongly suspect this is all a PR stunt. Come on...the "most powerful rocket ever" used to send up a car with a dummy to Mars? This is like the entire US culture in a metaphor...fake, stupid and a waste.

When the Apollonauts were "on the Moon" they could have just pointed a camera up into space, perpendicular to the Moon's surface, and photographed the Milky Way.

No atmosphere on the Moon, so no light scattering.

How easy and simple would that have been?

But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Glass IS a liquid, get thee to a science class. WTF are they teaching you all down there...I know we are fuckered up here but seriously...you did not know glass was a liquid? Oh, I'll type...slow...water...is...a...liquid...too...

Technically, glass is a liquid.

For all practical purposes, it is as solid as can be.

Hence glass, like the atmosphere, can condense energy (burning ants anyone) because the atmosphere is mostly...liquid. Hence we see the stars from down here but would not see them in space past a certain point. Hence there is light on Mars (according to the images we get anyhow) which means there is a certain amount of liquid in the atmosphere. Same with the moon if indeed we actually went there.
And why do people polish glass to make it convex or concave? To give us certain imaging factors that we would not normally have.