G'day Rick,

It is interesting to hear all the discussion of "... faking space/moon movie coverage to make it look 'better'.' I remember the discussions in the photographic journals of the 1960s - when the real angsy was over the fact that most of the non-US world believed Russian footage was 'real' ... but did believe US footage because it was too clear, and sharp - and thus it was suspected that it was from a Hollywood sound lot.

A detailed analysis of the Russian take, in one magazine, suggested that, while they had certainly done the space flights and 'space-walks' ... they had filmed what was distributed in murky practice tanks ... to present what was then perceived as reality ... whereas it is dead simple to get sharp, clear, well exposed photography/film in space (apart from the immense difficulty of getting there - and surviving) because the light is constant, predictable, sharp and abundant. Basically, it only requires a box camera (which is what they configured their "Space-Hasselblads" as!) or the cine equivalent.

Regards,

Bob