[garygreen]

big giant caveat: this is effectively just an advertisement for their ray-tracing tech, and they haven't published any results that i'm aware of, so i absolutely do not take this at face value.  nor should anyone.  but hopefully this will lead to a fun discussion anyway.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/10/11/turing-recreates-lunar-landing/

The demo team built on work they did four years ago, when they collected every detail they could to understand the iconic image. They researched the rivets on the lunar lander, identified the properties of the dust coating the moon’s surface, and measured the reflectivity of the material used in the astronauts’ space suits.

To update our original demo, NVIDIA engineers rebuilt the scene of the moon landing in Unreal Engine 4, a game engine developed by Epic Games. They simulated how the sun’s rays, coming from behind the lander, bounced off the moon’s surface and Armstrong’s suit, to cast light on Aldrin as he stepped off the lander.

All of this only heightened the fidelity of our latest demo — and re-confirmed what we’d discovered four years ago. That the illumination of the astronaut in the photo wasn’t caused by something other than the sun — such as studio lights  — but by light doing what light does.

here's a video of the work they did four years ago:

[Tom Bishop]

This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

[Mysfit]

This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

The moon reflectance was ruled out in this video, but another thing was ruled in.
I won't spoil it for you, if you still wanted to watch the video.

[AATW]

This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

Have you even watched the video? Because it actually isn't, that is a partial explanation but other things had to be accounted for.
When they did that they got a pretty good match to the original photo.

It's always amusing that people who have no actual expertise in this area pontificate about "Must be fake. If that was real then <insert made up thing here>"
The "thing" might be "you'd be able to see the stars" or "Buzz Aldrin is in shadow and shouldn't be seen" or whatever. Those things are dealt with in this video.

A load of experts who actually have accurate modelling software (we know it's accurate because, well, when they render scenes they look realistic) show how the original image is lit exactly how you'd expect if you understand the way light scatters and reflects and it's waved away. Odd.

[Rushy]

The entire basis for the moon landing being fake is that the video looks almost identical to a Stanley Kubrick film and many people don't think that's just one big coincidence.

[AATW]

I don't think that is the basis. Maybe for you, but a lot of people just have a mindset that "they" are up to something. And they probably are. But they doesn't mean everything is fake or "not as it seems". There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings and most of the "evidence" for fakery is from people who quite honestly have no expertise in this area.
The idea of a moon hoax starts with the conspiracy theory mindset, all the "evidence" is just a combination of confirmation bias and ignorance.

[Dr David Thork]

big giant caveat: this is effectively just an advertisement for their ray-tracing tech,

This video talks about Maxwell technology. That's not ray tracing. Since Maxwell, there has been Pascal (the 10 series) and now Turing for the 20 series. Only top end Turing has RTX. Maxwell is nVidia 7 series and 9 series. So this video is from 4 generations of Nvidia ago. Not Ray Tracing.

Luckily it is now available, so you don't have to live any more of your life without ray tracing.

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the NVIDIA render next to the Apollo photo, showing that the moon is very luminous and reflective, and can light up the back side of the lander:



However, if the lunar surface is so luminous and reflective, then why aren't the shadowed areas of the rocks and craters on the moon's surface also illuminated?

Rock from nasa.gov:



Crater:

[stack]

This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

You may want to re-watch the video b/c their work is not “just based on the reflectivity value that NASA claimed.” There’s a lot more to it, as Mysfit alluded to. But here’s a hint, the surface is a minor aspect.

Here is the NVIDIA render next to the Apollo photo, showing that the moon is very luminous and reflective, and can light up the back side of the lander:

However, if the lunar surface is so luminous and reflective, then why aren't the shadowed areas of the rocks and craters on the moon's surface also illuminated?

And yes, there are apparently shadows on the moon where shadows should be. 

[Tom Bishop]

This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

You may want to re-watch the video b/c their work is not “just based on the reflectivity value that NASA claimed.” There’s a lot more to it, as Mysfit alluded to. But here’s a hint, the surface is a minor aspect.

The video claims that the lunar surface is very bright and reflective, and is providing most of the light. Around the 4 minute mark they claim that they couldn't get it "quite right" and bring in the reflectivity off of Neil Armstrong's space suit.

They show a render at 4:07 on what the reflectivity looks like with the lunar surface only:



Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

[stack]

Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.

[AATW]

Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.

Ha. I was going to make the exact same point.
My evidence for the moon being somewhat reflective is...look at the moon and notice how you can see it.
My evidence for the moon not reflecting 100% of light that shines on it is...look at the moon and notice that you don't go blind, compare and contrast with trying to look at the sun.

I took this photo of the moon:



I don't have the best camera in the world but even with the zoom on my camera you can see shadows. Of course there are shadows, I don't know how reflections from the moon's surface could hit another bit of the moon's surface, but if light bounces off the moon's surface and scatters then of course that light could illuminate an object above the surface like, say, an astronaut.

Tom's post is a perfect example of what I said above, people who have no expertise pontificating about how things "should" look and thinking they know better than people who have spent years developing software which models the way light behaves and demonstrably renders accurate images.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.

What does this argument have to do with the fact that there is no illumination on the backside of this rock and others?

Tom's post is a perfect example of what I said above, people who have no expertise pontificating about how things "should" look and thinking they know better than people who have spent years developing software which models the way light behaves and demonstrably renders accurate images.

What is your expertise to tell us what the rock above should look like on a very reflective and luminous moon?

You are simultaneously arguing that deep dark shadows on rocks and craters are fine while claiming that the surface of the moon is incredibly reflective and luminous.

[AATW]

You are simultaneously arguing that deep dark shadows on rocks and craters are fine while claiming that the surface of the moon is incredibly reflective and luminous.

It clearly has some reflective properties, that's why we can see it.
That doesn't mean that there aren't shadows.
The earth is reflective too - more reflective than the moon, actually, on average. We still have shadows.
As for that particular photo, the sun is clearly illuminating one side of the rock, I can't see anything the other side of it which would reflect light back on to the dark part. If you look at the astronaut in the background you'll notice that he is casting a shadow too. It's interesting that the side of his leg is quite dark but the side of his helmet is brighter, I don't know if the helmets were just more reflective or if light is reflecting from some other part of his suit, maybe you could write to the guys who modelled the Buzz Aldrin photo and ask them to model this too, the way light scatters and reflects is complicated.

But as I guess you think this photo is fake anyway, what do you think is going on? Is it CGI? If so then what, have they rendered the light wrong? If that photo is from Apollo then they would not have had the CG technology to make it so what. Is it a painting and the artist drew the light wrong? If it was shot on a sound stage then the light is what it is, I don't see how that could be wrong.

Apart from confirmation bias and ignorance do you have any actual evidence that the photo is faked? If so, please present it.

[stack]

Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.

What does this argument have to do with the fact that there is no illumination on the backside of this rock and others?

I guess I’m not following your rock shadow hypothesis.

The contention Nvidia tackled was how, in that famous photo, was Buzz Aldrin illuminated when he was in the shadow of the Lunar Lander.

At around 4:10, they talk about how they added bounce light to simulate light reflecting off the surface. It wasn’t nearly good enough to replicate the image.

At around 4:50, the ‘aha’ moment. Enter Neil Armstrong and his suit as the missing source of light. Neil was actually a bounce for the sun.

At about 5:20, they talk about the reflective values. The surface is about 12%. A lunar space suit reflective value is around 80-90%.

"The famous shot was snapped by Neil Armstrong -- who was off to the side of Aldrin in full view of the Sun -- wearing a 85 percent reflective spacesuit that contained five layers of the highly reflective fabric Mylar blended with four layers of the flexible yet durable material Dacron on top of an additional two layers of heat resistant Kapton."

https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidias-new-gpu-sinks-moon-landing-hoax-using-virtual-light/

The point being, it was Neil’s suit that bounced the sunlight onto Buzz as he descended from the shadow side of the Lunar Lander.

[FlatEarth86]

Mythbusters did an episode on the faking of the moon landing. They were saying that the ground was reflective!! A reflective ground!!?? Just goes to show you that people will believe pretty much anything that the media shoves down their throat.

[AATW]

Mythbusters did an episode on the faking of the moon landing. They were saying that the ground was reflective!! A reflective ground!!?? Just goes to show you that people will believe pretty much anything that the media shoves down their throat.

Can you see the moon? I can, and I know from the shadows that it is being lit by a light source so the fact I can see it tells me that it is reflecting some of that light.
Note, some. Not all. If it reflected all of the light from the sun then it would be as bright as the sun.
How do you think you see the ground on earth if the ground isn't reflecting light which shines on it?

[AATW]

The point being, it was Neil’s suit that bounced the sunlight onto Buzz as he descended from the shadow side of the Lunar Lander.

I do get what Tom is saying, if you look at the video then they did realise that it was Armstrong's suit which was providing some of the illumination and when they accounted for that they got a pretty good match to the original photo. But Tom's point is that even before they did that, Aldrin is partially illuminated. So his question is "how come Aldrin is illuminated when the back side of the rock in this other photo isn't".
And the answer is that the back side of the rock is analogous to the back side of the lander, and most of that is in darkness too.
The headline is something can only be seen if light reflects off it, that's how we see anything. And when you're taking a photo it's worth bearing in mind that exposure is a factor, in the video they set the exposure high enough that you could see the star field they put in the background of the model but then the rest of the image became an over-exposed, white mess. A common piece of "evidence" for the landings being a hoax is "why can't you see the stars", the video explains why.
The way light bounces and scatters is complicated, I'm always interested that people who have no expertise in this area think they know better than people who have built complex models which render demonstrably realistic looking images. I'm not blindly accepting their work either, but understanding a bit about the way light works I can see the logic in that video and Armstrong's suit makes perfect sense as an additional light source, in the little clip from Apollo you can see his suit brightly shining from the other angle.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

-A common piece of "evidence" for the landings being a hoax is "why can't you see the stars"-

It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."

[Pete Svarrior]

It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."

While I'm not convinced that the moon missions were faked, I have to object to your description here. Most moon landing conspiracies I've engaged with suggest that the budget was relatively small, because the less you spend, the more you get to steal.

This is normally cognate with arguments that the lunar module looks as if it was made out of cheap tin foil, that huge amounts of decisive evidence mysteriously disappeared or were accidentally deleted, and that the evidence that remains is of uncharacteristically low quality for the time period.

Regardless of whether we choose to agree with the argument, the argument is not that a lot of money was spent to deceive people, but rather that people were gullible enough to accept something sub-par.