Talk:Apollo TV camera

message: The article needs some details on the camera used the camera used on Apollo 7, Apollo 11 LM, and perhaps other missions. I don't know enough about it, but it was black and white, 10 frames per second, Slow-Scan TV, low resolution.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that - someone had deleted it.  I added it back.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At the time, some of the text about the first camera had been taken out.  I went back to an earlier version and recovered the lost text.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lost text

message: Wasn't the B&W Westinghouse camera used on Apollo 7 too?  Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this ( http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat7.pdf ) document, the black & white camera flown on Apollo 7 was provided by RCA. Andy120290 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I think I fixed it.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: One of the slow-scan B&Ws was carried as a backup later, but not used.  I forgot if it was the RCA or Westinghouse, but it is in one of the external references.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for all of your useful information. Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 7 

message: The contributors Oleg1000, ан_пердат, et al. are confused about parameters of the Apollo TV cameras in situ, NTSC TV standard, signal bandwidths and the video processing at the Earth.
It appears they consider the Apollo TV camera, transmitter-receiver and post processing as a single unit or entity.  This implication and the context thus contradicts NASA sources or credible researchers.
Meanwhile, the article should be rolled back to [as of 20:23, 30 April 2010], and then it will be inline with the comprehensive research on the subject from Dwight Steven-Boniecki: http://www.livetvfromthemoon.com/The_Cameras.html 
Read also: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/ and http://www.hawestv.com/moon_cam/moonctel.htm
-- Lunar Goblin 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: # warning
#: Oleg1000 et al. moon hoax believers - vandalism
# warning
#: Lunar Goblin systematically distorts real facts.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg1000 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2010

message: For additional verification of the Apollo TV camera specs, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers journal articles listed detail for the cameras. SMPTE is completely independant from NASA. It is an organisation for engineers within the film and television industry and is responsible for setting television standards:
"Television Camera System for the Command Module of the Apollo Spacecraft" SMPTE Feb 1965 Vol. 74 John Lowrance
"The Television Camera System Used in Apollo 7 and 8 Command Modules" SMPTE vol. 79 no. 1 Max H. Messner
"Apollo Television Cameras" vol. 79 Oct 1970 SMPTE Journal L.L. Niemeyer, jr and E.L. Svensson
"Apollo 15 and 16 Ground-Commanded Television Assembly vol 81 Dec 1972 SMPTE Bert M. Soltoff  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstevenb (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2010

message: Is it possible to remove the caption that states this wiki page is under dispute? Those who doubt the camera specs do not refer to any documents which backed their allegations. They have a clear misunderstanding of the specs of the TV cameras used on Apollo, and have mounted an internet campaign at various space (bad Astronomy / Universe Today, Pravda Discussion board, Apollohoax.net) websites to discredit Apollo. It is my strong opinion that their dispute is not based on any solid facts, but rather conjecture and misunderstanding on their part. Dstevenb (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2011

message: I have modified the specs on the Apollo 12 lunar surface camera as it was not a vidicon tube as previously described, but rather an SEC (Secondary Electron Conduction) tube. I also added the note that later TV cameras had burn-proof technology which would prevent further such accidents from rendering the TV camera useless. Dstevenb (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2011

message: If you read the document cited, and understand the NTSC TV system, you will see that the explanation in this section is technically wrong, and not an accurate representation of the cited source in that section.
Here is the documented cited with citation 8 in that section: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat7.pdf
The section in wikipedia seems to ignore the fact that NTSC is 30 (actually 29.97) frames interlaced at 60 Hz, giving 60 actually 59.94) interlaced fields, not 30 interlaced fields.
These are important details for that section to make sense and be technically accurate.
The statement on the phosphor of the tv being a framebuffer is also wrong, while yes the TVs phosphor was a more persistent one to deal with the 10 progressive frames per second, the actual framebuffer component was done with the tape mentioned before along with delay circuitry to delay the frames longer to give the camera the chance to capture both fields.
All this is covered in the document cited in citation 8 of that section and linked above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeel co (talk • contribs) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar wording in another article is discussed in the last section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_11_missing_tapes&oldid=785620400 I once considered simplifying and correcting both articles, but thought I might end up adding more errors and confusion.--63.226.236.137 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Signal Processing section very poorly explained, and has technical errors.