What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
194 Comments
- jrm125, on 05/18/2009, -8/+229Not that good an HDR
- JRHodes88, on 05/18/2009, -1/+162Why do they let ghosts near the space shuttle?
- MCA2142, on 05/18/2009, -2/+161I'd say this is a horrible example of HDR photography.
Just because you merge 3 layers, doesn't make it HDR.
For ***** sakes, look at the user's other "HDR" pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandy_pics/2583467488 ... - Chairboy, on 05/18/2009, -4/+80Of possible interest, the Enterprise was originally planned to be a flight article. They were going to do the glide tests from the 747, then bring it back to the factory to be modified into a normal shuttle that would fly to space. Around the same time, they had a test article they built for destructive tests. It was just a basic frame, not a full shuttle, and they were going to stress test it to destruction. By the time they had completed Columbia and were ready to go back and start converting the Enterprise to a flight vehicle, they realized that with all the structural tweaks and changes they had made in the meantime, the cost to convert the big E to a space vehicle would be prohibitive because big chunks of structure were too heavy (which would directly impact the amount of cargo it could lift).
So they looked at the structural test article and said "You know... maybe if we DIDN'T destroy that, we could turn it into a shuttle". So they consigned Enterprise to the museum heap, stopped their testing just short of destruction on the test article, and turned it into a full flying space shuttle. The end result was that the hull # of the shuttle built from this framework was OV-99, versus the 100+ designators of the rest of the shuttle fleet.
The name of this test frame? Challenger. - missinglink, on 05/18/2009, -5/+66Can we be done with HDR yet?
- thisisparta, on 05/18/2009, -2/+57HDR ruined it...
- regularsteven, on 05/18/2009, -18/+73This pic wouldn't be worth the time of day without HDR
/s - Jektal, on 05/18/2009, -0/+52Yeah, I mean...
Who they gonna call? - bobdole369, on 05/18/2009, -2/+52This is a horrible HDR. Halos, color shifts, way unrealistic, it looks like absolute garbage. You should never be able to tell a photograph is done in HDR. Complete overkill that looks like crap.
- FakeHipster, on 05/18/2009, -1/+45Yeah...looks more like a video game render than a real scene.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/18/2009, -2/+37It still isn't worth the time of day as HDR, but HDR still carries the magical ability to front page no matter how badly it's done.
- EssPii, on 05/18/2009, -2/+31I kill a baby every time I see a terrible picture turned into an HDR purely for the "Wow" factor. I killed five when I saw this picture because they couldn't even make an HDR look "good".
See the massacre here: http://esspea-photography.com/blog - Plumhead, on 05/18/2009, -4/+31Did anybody else notice Morgan Freeman's ghost standing in front of the ship!?!?
- adammarlow, on 05/18/2009, -2/+29The first shuttle to be launched into space was Columbia. Unfortunately it wont be put on display anytime soon.
- thcobbs, on 05/18/2009, -1/+27Just for reference... it wasn't the shuttle that was the problem.
- PsychoBrat, on 05/18/2009, -1/+26It's not like they could stop them even if they wanted to...
- Chairboy, on 05/18/2009, -0/+22Sp-sp-sp-sp-space Ghosts!
- Gibletoid, on 05/18/2009, -3/+23Hopefully we can someday get Tilt-Shift combined with HDR, because these are not overused techniques, and we need to see more of them.
Sorry my Sarcasm Lock key is broken, and my text above reflects this. - Chairboy, on 05/18/2009, -1/+20Seriously, Challenger didn't explode. The failed SRB burned through the ET mounts until the Orbiter separated from it. The aerodynamic stress of being exposed to side-ways high-mach airflow ripped the shuttle apart. The fireball you see wasn't an explosion either, it was the external tank failing because of unbalanced aerodynamic forces and spilling its load of fuel, some of which was ignited by the solid rocket boosters that broke free.
If you consider a campfire an explosion, then sure, it exploded. But otherwise, the Challenger was actually destroyed by airflow after it broke free of the shuttle stack. - tb0r, on 05/18/2009, -0/+19Challenger disaster had to do with failed o-rings on the solid rocket boosters.
- milocastanza, on 05/18/2009, -2/+19Another example of HDR overkill. Halos galore and cheap gimmicks do not lend themselves to good photography. In moderation, HDR goes a long way to evening out contrast, but this is just terrible.
- onefix, on 05/18/2009, -0/+16@k3rfuffl3
No, not exactly. They were meant to be, but all but 2 are one of a kind.
- Enterprise was built to do atmospheric flight tests and it was intended to be retrofitted for flight as the 2nd shuttle to go into space, it never was because of the cost of the fuel system (Enterprise doesn't have a fuel system on it).
- Columbia was the first built and was actually originally fitted with ejection seats, but the entire system was later removed when the crew was upped to 7.
- Challenger was the "static test" vehicle and was the test-bed for the fuel system...it was later retro-fitted to make it flight-worthy...
- Endeavour was built after the Challenger disaster from "structural spares" from the construction of Discovery and Atlantis.
- Discovery and Atlantis are the only 2 that could be called "the same", but even they have their own histories. - tinkafoo, on 05/18/2009, -3/+19god I hate HDR. it really ***** up the image.
- thcobbs, on 05/18/2009, -1/+15From coast to coast?
- phreakinpher, on 05/18/2009, -4/+18Agreed...Proof that the HDR fad has hit a wall.
I - GoingPostal, on 05/18/2009, -0/+13When I was stationed at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama (half the base is Marshall Space Flight Center) back in '79, we were having a picnic on a Sunday afternoon by the Tennessee river that ran through the south end of the base. To our surprise, a procession of military vehicles drove by us. They had the Enterprise in tow and loaded it on a barge and then floated it down the river. I wish I had a camera with me. It was the coolest thing I had ever seen.
- Chairboy, on 05/18/2009, -0/+13Nope, you're mistaken about many things.
1. The explosives you describe are called the Range Safety System. The RSO (the guy in charge of pressing the button) used it to destroy the solid rocket boosters 38 seconds after the stack came apart.
2. The RSS was NOT used on the Orbiter.
3. Europe was in no danger, not by a few thousand miles.
4. They don't have a capsule in the shuttle, this was deleted from the design before it was built. - Downfall88, on 05/18/2009, -1/+14...ghostbusters?
- shadowman99, on 05/18/2009, -0/+12@thcobbs - The Range Safety Officer (who has the responsibility of detonating an off-course rocket) did not destroy the Orbiter, he blew up the solid rocket boosters which had survived the fuel tank explosion and were a potential threat to lives on the ground. The SRBs were blown up, but only after the catastrophe had occurred. The crew was not killed by any direct action of the RSO, but as a consequence of the launch failure.
@Chairboy - Thanks for being the voice of reason. - scratend0788, on 05/18/2009, -0/+11that is laughably bad.
A little more.........A little more........PERFECT!!!!....They're going to love this. - TRoosevelt427, on 05/18/2009, -2/+13Hi, I'm an administrator from a group called "Horrible HDR Shots" and we'd love to have your picture added to the group!
- reticulate, on 05/18/2009, -0/+10Wow, this photo could have been in normal exposure and actually been decent.
Shame. - adegen, on 05/18/2009, -0/+10Whoever took this picture didnt even color correct the image...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adegen/1333551842/
Is what the lighting in the room its on display in actually looks like. - jeshakespeare, on 05/18/2009, -1/+11Hi, I'm an admin from a group called the National Aeronautic and Space Administration and we'd love to have your space-craft added to the group!
- profJohn, on 05/18/2009, -1/+11It's disturbing to me that folks' visual sensibilities are such that this got 500+ diggs. It's just a horrible example of HDR.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/18/2009, -1/+11Yeah, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to enjoy a good picture of the Enterprise without an extreme overdose of halos, oversaturation and highlights and shadows that are still clipped.
But whatever flies as "HDR"! - MattDell, on 05/18/2009, -2/+11This is quite possibly the WORST HDR I have ever seen.
WAY OVERDONE! Buried. - HappyScrappy, on 05/18/2009, -1/+10Why do people use HDR to refer to "photoshopped to high heaven"?
HDR is a technique that lets you capture a larger dynamic range of luminances that a camera would have difficulty capturing otherwise. Since the resulting picture is supposed to be more accurate and thus look more natural. Instead we get junk where people just photoshopped stuff to look moody or whatever. - SteelChicken, on 05/18/2009, -0/+9If you notice military personnel if they have the flag on their right shoulders it moves with the "direction of the wind" if that makes any sense.
http://www.usflag.org/flagpatch.html - inactive, on 05/18/2009, -1/+10It's more fuel efficient to use the powdered bones of the stillborn in a 30/20/50 mixture with the souls of the recently departed and the crushed dreams of orphans.
- sharkd, on 05/18/2009, -0/+8STA-099 (which became OV-99 'Challenger') wasn't tested to "near destruction," it was tested to 1.2x design limits, rather than the 1.4x, which was originally specified in the Space Transportation System authorization. The 1.4x design load limit was 'tested' using the 1.2x test data, extrapolated by computer modeling. (The bare-aluminum structure can be seen in this photo of STA-099: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Shuttle_Ch ... )
OV-101 'Enterprise' lacked the OMS plumbing, a number of rear bulkhead/engine mount structural members, vertical tail structure and operational TPS of OV-102 'Columbia'.
Tearing OV-101 apart and rebuilding it to flight standard, was deemed too costly versus adding flight-rated equipment to the otherwise-empty shell of STA-099.
As it is, Columbia's TPS and thrust structure differed significantly from that of OV-103 'Discovery' and OV-104 'Atlantis', as well as the structural spares used to build OV-105 'Endeavour', that it was significantly heavier. - Subduction, on 05/18/2009, -1/+9HDR, the new Tilt/Shift!
And sad really, because well-used it can create quite beautiful pictures. - TomOwens, on 05/18/2009, -0/+8Unless it's on a military uniform (or vehicle), when it represents forward motion. The staff used to carry the flag is under the stars. If you are running forward, the stars would be forward.
- Chairboy, on 05/18/2009, -1/+8I'm pretty sure you're about to end up on a couple of watchlists.
sorry - ltethe, on 05/18/2009, -0/+7Needs more Lens Flare.
- WMGoBuffs, on 05/18/2009, -1/+8I agree, most HDR's look like clown vomit. I tried it once or twice, and this is the only one that came out halfway life-like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wmgobuffs/3441022865/ ...
- ophello, on 05/18/2009, -1/+8Correction: ***** HDR.
- Spartandog, on 05/18/2009, -3/+10This is APT (Amateur Photoshop Trickery) not HDR (High Dynamic Range). We need to set the record straight on this tomfoolery.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6lol tone mapping
- Chairboy, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6All absolutely correct. The difference in the TPS (insert Office Space joke here) is very apparent in photographs, especially in the 'chines'. Those are the black parts at the front of the root of the wings. Compare Columbia to another orbiter and it jumps out at you if you know what you're looking for.
Just to clarify, if anyone felt I was trying to make a connection between the structural testing and the Challenger accident, that wasn't the case. It's just a fascinating sidenote in am amazing aerospace project, especially to anyone just anal-retentive enough to have noticed the OV-99 designation without expending the effort to understand why it was different.
Many of the astronauts who flew more than one mission in those early heydays of the shuttle program described the Challenger as their favorite. I read one quote that called it a 'sports car', though I can't imagine how this is possible considering how close each of the OVs are to each other.
I guess each spacecraft has its own 'feel', the same way planes do. My friend flew both cherokees at the flight school we attended and said that N8258S just "felt better", even though it was basically identical to 92L, the other one on the field. -
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 