Why I stopped doubting the moon landing footage grain issue

I used to think the weird grain in Apollo 16 footage was proof of a studio setup. Then I watched a NASA tech talk where they showed the actual film stock details. Turns out they used a specific Kodak 2485 film that has crazy high sensitivity because they needed it for the bright lunar surface. The grain pattern matches exactly what you get from pushing that film speed in extreme light conditions. Has anyone else looked at the raw film specs and changed their mind?

2 comments

Log in to join the discussion

Log In

2 Comments

wrenstone2mo ago

I saw a similar breakdown from a film archivist on YouTube, he went frame by frame with the Kodak datasheets and it really clicked for me how the grain works with that specific film stock. Did you check out that NASA tech talk, was it the one with the engineer explaining the ASA ratings?

4

ray_webb62mo ago

The thing people overlook is how the latent image forms on Kodak stock in low pressure environments. NASA had to recalibrate their ASA ratings because the vacuum of space reduces the reciprocity failure curve. That engineer mentioned it in passing during the tech talk, but most glossed over it. If you watch it again, he shows a chart where the exposure times jump from 1/1000 to 1/2 second at -60F and zero atmosphere. That's why the Apollo shots look different than what you'd get on Earth with the same film. The silver halide crystals behave more like a gas than a solid up there.

2