3D Moon photos
Posted 13 July 2007 - 06:47 AM
"A great advance was made by Warren de la Rue, at London, who began his work in 1852, especially when, in 1857, he caused his telescope to follow the movement of the moon by clockwork. His pictures were good and numerous, so that he could make a selection of them, and arrange them in pairs to produce stereoscopic effects and represent the moon as a globe."
Whether this is actually one of de la Rue's is not made clear.
Posted 13 July 2007 - 09:32 AM
I've just been having a play at a close up made by combining plates from the USAF Lunar Atlas and the Consolidated Lunar Atlas (CD). This shows the crater Fontenelle and an allegedly square area on the right that I have been intrigued by since reading of it in an old book. Rev. Webb (1881) describes it as:
"A nearly square enclosure foreshortened into a lozenge, whose rampart-like boundaries, according to Beer and Maedler, 'throw the observer into the highest astonishment.' They are very unequal in height, and one is little more than a light-streak; yet they are so regular that it is scarcely possible to imagine them natural, till we find that they are 64 miles long, 250 to 3000 feet high, and 1 mile or more thick. There are parallel ridges in the interior, and in one place the form of a perfect cross: unfortunately, it lies in such a position that years, as Beer and Maedler observe, may pass without a good view of it. I have often looked for it in vain. Birmingham has been more successful."
Well, I've looked at all the photos I have, and it no longer appears to answer to this decription to me - has anyone else had a good view of it?
Posted 13 July 2007 - 12:06 PM
Posted 13 July 2007 - 06:19 PM
Posted 14 July 2007 - 03:38 PM
It's odd how 3D seems to have been very popular in the 19th century, but you don't see so much of it nowadays. NASA take a lot of stereo photos from spacecraft, but they generally get shown in the side by side format and it doesn't look as if many amateurs have a viewer, although they can be bought very cheaply and are even included in the back of some NASA SP books. They don't seem to have done any 3D from telescopic photos though; maybe there was no interest once they had spacecraft photos, but also you need two photos with very similar lighting, and any single photo atlas always makes a point of the photos having different lighting.
Posted 16 July 2007 - 10:08 AM
The attached image comparing Neison's 1876 lunar map to a Consolidated Lunar Atlas image may be helpful in trying to understand what Webb is writing about. Since Webb says the true square shape is distorted by foreshortening, both images have been rectified to aerial views using LTVT. To keep Neison's labels as legible as possible, they are also both shown in a south-up orientation (rotated approximately 180 degrees from your 3D version).
Neison actually shows three rectangular-shaped enclosures between Fontenelle and Timaeus, one of them being the crater Birmingham (to whom -- the person, rather than the crater -- Webb refers). Webb's description sounds like a compilation of information he has read about, but never actually observed himself. From the way you have presented it, I have the impression he thinks that information refers to the very faint enclosure next to Fontenelle (the one marked by the red arrows on Neison's map), but could it perhaps be one of the others?
The CLA images seems to give a hint of Neison's faint enclosure next to Fontenelle, but if I am seeing it right, it is even more rectangular than Neison shows -- certainly not square. Nor do I see the interior ridges or cross that Webb mentions. The hilly area near Timaeus is much more square on Neison's map, so perhaps that is what the reports refered to?
In any event, like you I have been unable to find any photos of this region showing something that would elicit Beer and Maedler's sense of astonishment, but perhaps others have seen it. I am also unable to understand the comment that many years pass between good views of this enclosure (or does he mean the cross?). Is it possible Beer and Maedler were referring to the crater we now call Birmingham (which probably did not have that name at the time of their work)?
Posted 17 July 2007 - 09:23 AM
"West of Fontenelle, Maedler discovered a very peculiar formation, from its regularity and perfect form one of those strange objects that seem as if they were the work of Selenites, though from its vastness alone seen to be of necessity natural and not artificial, but resembling the numerous similar objects on the earth. This formation consists of a perfect square, enclosed by long straight walls about 65 miles in length, 1 in breadth, and from 250 to 3,000 feet in height. The highest side is the north-west, where Maedler estimates the walls as being 40 deg. steep (nearer 20 deg.), with two projecting peaks at the two ends, and between them a row of smaller peaks like towers on a wall. This side of the quadrangle, μ, is divided by a short rill-like valley (S. 141), extending to the crater b, with at its mouth a round small steep peak some 600 feet high: and before the chief wall at ζ is a very regular cross. The north-east side is lower, and in one or two places somewhat interrupted, and its height more irregular, at the small peak, δ, being 1,300 feet. The south-east wall is a very regular uniform straight wall, ε, of considerable steepness; and finally, the south-west border is described by Maedler as a broad light streak, but under very favourable conditions a long, nearly straight ridge very gently sloping on the south, and slightly steeper on the north, where it may be 200 feet high, can be seen. Within the quadrangle are two rows of low peaks, and besides the cross ζ, south is a smaller one not mentioned by Maedler."
Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:09 PM
Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:14 PM
Posted 18 July 2007 - 01:19 PM
Posted 22 July 2007 - 12:42 PM
Posted 22 July 2007 - 12:54 PM
they used this (stereo viewers) here on the earth
but on the moon how they have the photos over cross at the right size and over laying?
jack 47'N 71'O
Posted 23 July 2007 - 07:24 AM
The above was all done with printed photos. I made the ones here by adjusting the size, shape and rotation of one in Photoshop until it matched the other near enough. This was done my making the top one a 50% opaque layer so the bottom one showed through.
Posted 28 July 2007 - 10:31 AM
Posted 28 July 2007 - 07:35 PM
Posted 29 July 2007 - 07:20 PM
Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:31 PM
I would to know if this anaglyph is a photography or 3 D drawing 3.
I very spectacular 3D image.
Martin from Canada
Posted 30 July 2007 - 09:59 AM
The 3D image of Copernicus you were able to create with photos from your telescope is quite wonderful!
You might like to compare it to a pair of anaglyphs I made of Copernicus in two halves east and west. Those are based on Lunar Orbiter photos combined with one taken from Earth. The overall tilt and curvature of the Moon has been removed, so you see just the ups and downs of the crater and its surroundings as if viewed from overhead.
Dan's very old 3D image of the Moon from Fauth's book at the start of the thread was produced from photographs. Having never seen that book, I am not entirely sure if it is one of the Warren de la Rue ones or not (there were many such views created in the late 1800's).
Dan's later 3D image of the "Mädler's Square" region near Fontenelle was also made from photographs, as he explains in the text, but not new digital ones. Rather he seems to have used scans of photos published in books such as the Consolidated Lunar Atlas from the 1960's. That was long before the invention of digital photography, so the originals were exposed on film or, more likely, glass plates with special emulsions. However, they have been combined digitally to produce the 3D effect.
Do you know of 3D drawings of the Moon that were not made from photos? It would seem a difficult process, but an interesting challenge for a skilled artist.
Posted 30 July 2007 - 11:20 AM
Hope you and Bob don't mind, but here is an anaglyph of your two gorgeous east and west views combined using Autostitch. It has a couple of bands where detail is lost, however I kind of think it looks cool to see the two beauties together. I would like to try a drawing based 3D anaglyph. My assumption is that choosing the extremes in libration for a prominent crater would produce the views and that very accurate scaling would be important. Any other thoughts about this project?
Posted 30 July 2007 - 11:51 AM
Posted 30 July 2007 - 11:57 AM
Posted 30 July 2007 - 12:05 PM