PDA

View Full Version : Cosmos got it wrong



Moongazer
2014-Oct-02, 07:28 AM
In episode 8 of the TV series Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey, they doctored a scene of the night sky overlooking Sydney Harbour, by superimposing a picture of a crescent moon shot in the northern hemisphere and placing it in both an impossible orientation and sky position for the southern hemisphere. More details, plus a screenshot here: http://tiny.cc/cosmoserror

Hlafordlaes
2014-Oct-02, 07:45 AM
The second Brandon Braga got involved, the series was doomed to a lot of stuff. I enjoyed it, but it was not up to Sagan's standards and needed a lot more effort to respect the foundation it was intended to build on. Loved that it was the FOX channel that showed it, leading to some interesting reactions in house.

tusenfem
2014-Oct-02, 09:12 AM
Welcome Moongazer.
As there seems to be no question in your OP and this is about a TV series, I am moving this to "SMAL".

Noclevername
2014-Oct-02, 09:21 AM
The second Brandon Braga got involved, the series was doomed to a lot of stuff.

As with most series he touches.


Loved that it was the FOX channel that showed it, leading to some interesting reactions in house.

Out of curiosity, care to share some of those responses?

Hlafordlaes
2014-Oct-02, 10:39 AM
Out of curiosity, care to share some of those responses?

Thought I might get called on that. The impression is from reading stuff I browsed back in the day; kept no links. Sorry about that.

KlausH
2014-Oct-02, 11:19 AM
In episode 8 of the TV series Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey, they doctored a scene of the night sky overlooking Sydney Harbour, by superimposing a picture of a crescent moon shot in the northern hemisphere and placing it in both an impossible orientation and sky position for the southern hemisphere. More details, plus a screenshot here: http://tiny.cc/cosmoserror

I really don't understand why you get so worked up about this?
Producers do that all the time. They may have looked at the original footage and somebody decided: hey, wouldn't that look better with a moon in it?
That's probably all this is.

Don't assume for a moment that the show is exclusively Tyson's gig. He's mainly the host. Who knows what kind of decision making power he has on this.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was very little.
He probably wasn't involved at all in the decision to put a moon in there.

As far as I understand this is mainly a NGC production.
They don't care about education or astronomical accuracy.
For them, this is just another venue to sell air time for advertisers.

Noclevername
2014-Oct-02, 11:45 AM
I really don't understand why you get so worked up about this?


...They don't care about education or astronomical accuracy.


That's why. It's not Cosmos, it's a generic space show with the name slapped on. It's disappointing, especially for those of us who grew up with the real thing.

Jim
2014-Oct-02, 11:48 AM
As with most series he touches.

That's very unfair. Name me one series he has ruined.

Besides that one.

Or that one.

Or that one.

Or ...

Oh.

A bit more seriously, I'm sure this was done by an editor who knew little about astronomy and just wanted a good picture. Had they involved an astronomer, he would have corrected their error, while trying not to laugh uncontrollably.

Yes, the series was an NGC effort which also aired on Fox. I'm sure the comments about it airing on Fox included some reference to that other space documentary they aired some years back about the moon landings. Nothing beats consistency. (Ref: Brandon Braga)

KlausH
2014-Oct-02, 11:56 AM
That's why. It's not Cosmos, it's a generic space show with the name slapped on. It's disappointing, especially for those of us who grew up with the real thing.

That I can understand.
But those days are over, I'm afraid.
NGC is just using Carl Sagan's name and "Cosmos" to attract viewers.
The spirit of Carl Sagan and his original show don't fit into today's entertainment system any longer...

primummobile
2014-Oct-02, 12:34 PM
The spirit of Carl Sagan and his original show don't fit into today's entertainment system any longer...

Unfortunately, that's the way it is for everything. The History channel used to show historical documentaries.

My main issue with the new incarnation of Cosmos, in the episodes I did see, is that it is too Earth-centric. I was hoping for a program that talked about the universe without tying everything back to Earth in some way. There are plenty of programs on television about Earth.

For example, there was an episode about Venus that I was very excited to see and they spent most of it talking about climate change on Earth. Venus is fascinating to me, mostly because we know so little about it compared to what we know about Mars. My anticipation may be part of the reason I felt let down.

KlausH
2014-Oct-02, 12:48 PM
My main issue with the new incarnation of Cosmos, in the episodes I did see, is that it is too Earth-centric.

Yes, I noticed that as well.
Above all, it was way too Tyson-centric for my taste. He enjoys the limelight a bit too much.
Also, those endless cartoons! They occupied way too much screen time for my taste.
The ship wasn't bad, though. And some nice cgi.

Trebuchet
2014-Oct-02, 04:44 PM
Yes, the series was an NGC effort which also aired on Fox.

As is my wont, I'll point out here that the National Geographic Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel) is a joint venture between the National Geographic Society and Fox, with Fox holding 67% of the US version and 50% of the international version. That goes a long way in explaining some of their content like Alaska State Troopers and Border Wars.

(Edited to add the link)

DaveC426913
2014-Oct-02, 04:59 PM
A bit more seriously, I'm sure this was done by an editor who knew little about astronomy and just wanted a good picture.

That's the litmus test that distinguishes them.
The integrity of a show is dependent on whether the experts get final sign-off before a production goes out the door.
When an editor can make unsupervised alterations without the science team having the final say - that is not a science show; it is a generic space show.

Hlafordlaes
2014-Oct-02, 06:54 PM
As is my wont, I'll point out here that the National Geographic Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel) is a joint venture between the National Geographic Society and Fox, with Fox holding 67% of the US version and 50% of the international version. That goes a long way in explaining some of their content like Alaska State Troopers and Border Wars.

(Edited to add the link)

I've forgiven Adelaide for giving us that 'gent' ever since I saw this marvelous guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeQjkQpeJwY). (Worth it!)

Amber Robot
2014-Oct-02, 08:09 PM
It is exceedingly common to find errors in the placement, angular size, and illumination of the moon in all media that attempt to show it. I admit that I was naive to think that artists, part of whose job I thought was to understand lighting and illumination, would get this right.

DaveC426913
2014-Oct-03, 02:00 AM
It is exceedingly common to find errors in the placement, angular size, and illumination of the moon in all media that attempt to show it. I admit that I was naive to think that artists, part of whose job I thought was to understand lighting and illumination, would get this right.
I can see errors in placement, but how could you have an error in size or illumination (or are your referring to phase)?

The Moon is commonly portrayed to be huge, but that's less an error than license. You can make the Moon appear as large as you want if you shoot with a telescopic lens. Whicis h means a

19988

grant hutchison
2014-Oct-03, 11:07 AM
I can see errors in placement, but how could you have an error in size or illumination (or are your referring to phase)?

The Moon is commonly portrayed to be huge, but that's less an error than license. You can make the Moon appear as large as you want if you shoot with a telescopic lens. Whicis h means a

19988You're right about the telephoto, of course, but I think your example is the sort of constructed composite that people are complaining about. For the moon to rise with its north-south axis so close to vertical, you have to be a very long way north - too far north for deciduous trees that large. The moon also shows none of the refractive vertical compression that you see when the lunar or solar disc is near the horizon.

My pet peeve is sunrises that are obviously sunsets run backwards. It requires a bit of planning to get your telephoto pointed exactly right to frame a sunrise, so it's very common to film a sunset instead. I've lost count of the number of apparently southern-hemisphere sunrises I've been shown when the movie is set in a northern temperate location.

Grant Hutchison

DaveC426913
2014-Oct-03, 02:35 PM
My pet peeve is sunrises that are obviously sunsets run backwards. It requires a bit of planning to get your telephoto pointed exactly right to frame a sunrise, so it's very common to film a sunset instead. I've lost count of the number of apparently southern-hemisphere sunrises I've been shown when the movie is set in a northern temperate location.

How can you tell?


On a tangent, I am amused at how often shot scenes are played in reverse.

It is very funny to see a fireplace suck flames in. Once you notice it, it's hard not to see. They do this a lot on home reno shows (cameraman has shot a slow zoom-in, but the editor prefers a slow zoom out).

It is also obvious in a scene where someone is wearing flowing clothing. There's a commercial on TV right now (a bunch of teens dancing/jumping around on a tarmac - don't even know what the product/service is) that is shot entirely in reverse.

grant hutchison
2014-Oct-03, 03:37 PM
My pet peeve is sunrises that are obviously sunsets run backwards. It requires a bit of planning to get your telephoto pointed exactly right to frame a sunrise, so it's very common to film a sunset instead. I've lost count of the number of apparently southern-hemisphere sunrises I've been shown when the movie is set in a northern temperate location.How can you tell?Either from first principles, or by watching the sun rise and set.
In mid to high northern latitudes, the sun rises by moving up and rightwards; it sets by moving down and rightwards. If you see a sunrise in which the sun moves up and leftwards, it's either a southern hemisphere sunrise, or a northern hemisphere sunset played backwards.
So if the movie is set in North America or Europe, an up-and-left sunrise is wrong. I've also seen the reverse problem with an Australian movie, and a movie set in Kenya that showed a mid-latitude diagonal sunset rather than the near-vertical drop you see close to the equator.

Grant Hutchison

SeanF
2014-Oct-03, 04:00 PM
If you see a sunrise in which the sun moves up and leftwards, it's either a southern hemisphere sunrise, or a northern hemisphere sunset played backwards.
Or a northern hemisphere sunrise with the film flipped left-to-right.

Amber Robot
2014-Oct-03, 05:05 PM
I can see errors in placement, but how could you have an error in size or illumination (or are your referring to phase)?

The Moon is commonly portrayed to be huge, but that's less an error than license. You can make the Moon appear as large as you want if you shoot with a telescopic lens. Whicis h means a

19988

For example, I've been spending a fair amount of time reading children's books these days, especially ones regarding going to sleep. The moon appears a lot in these books. It is virtually always shown as a thin crescent. But the angle of the crescent in the sky can tell you a lot about the location of the observer. So, what I mean by "illumination" is the angle of the crescent, i.e., what direction the sunlight is coming from, ergo where the Sun is positioned. If it is night time, then the Sun has to be below the horizon. If it's a thin crescent, then it can only a be a few hours after sunset or a few hours before sunrise. The angle then can lead you to the latitude of the observer (with some variation due to season).

And I agree that you can use a telephoto lens to make the moon appear larger, but that is going to have implications on the rest of the photograph. Very often you see a photograph that is obviously taken with a short focal length with a large moon put in.

I also have the same pet peeve as Grant Hutchison about seeing sunrises as sunsets played backwards.

It's pretty clear that most people do not know anything about how objects move in the sky. Even the Sun.

DaveC426913
2014-Oct-03, 06:35 PM
It's pretty clear that most people do not know anything about how objects move in the sky. Even the Sun.

I think it would be more accurate to say people do not care for more than a certain degree of accuracy - the degree being determined by the context of the presentation (TV show? Storybook? Science Documentary?).

Without a specific scientific context (shows about flowers and mountains), few except experts expect* that a picture of a flower has to be the right varietal, or that a mountain scene has to have the right forest growth for its locale.

* say that three times fast

Amber Robot
2014-Oct-03, 07:10 PM
I think it would be more accurate to say people do not care for more than a certain degree of accuracy - the degree being determined by the context of the presentation (TV show? Storybook? Science Documentary?).

While that may also be true, that does not invalidate my statement. I do not think these occurrences arise from people being knowledgeable about how the moon is illuminated and how it moves in the sky and simply not caring to worry about the accuracy of their representation of it.

Your statement is more true about things like television shows and movies showing lightning and thunder occurring simultaneously, which most people actually do know is incorrect (unless you are being struck by lightning at the moment).

Solfe
2014-Oct-03, 07:17 PM
I would have to offer that the theme can dictate if it is acceptable to mess with the film. If the theme or point of view is distorted, then playing with the film is ok. Magical stories lend themselves to this (Ladyhawk comes to mind). Weird skips, distortions or flips in stories with digitally or chemically altered characters is acceptable for science fiction.

Even some documentaries can get away with it if it is done for art or ramming home a weird idea. For example, showing an eclipse before a commercial break then running that film backwards when the show starts up to get the view back on track is fine. This sort of "crazy art film as science" stuff comes up anytime quantum mechanics is involved. I'm fine with it. QM is weird enough that pictures never describe what is happening very well.

The one goof that gets me every time is a character saying "a new moon" and a full moon is shown - it sends me over the edge.

Amber Robot
2014-Oct-03, 08:51 PM
The one goof that gets me every time is a character saying "a new moon" and a full moon is shown - it sends me over the edge.

I've never seen that.

grant hutchison
2014-Oct-03, 08:58 PM
If you see a sunrise in which the sun moves up and leftwards, it's either a southern hemisphere sunrise, or a northern hemisphere sunset played backwards.Or a northern hemisphere sunrise with the film flipped left-to-right.Ah, true, and I've actually seen something similar. There was a BBC documentary featuring a time-lapse view of the aurora borealis, in which a mirror-reversed Orion and Pleiades scooted by in the background from right to left. I have no idea why they would do that, but they did it.

Grant Hutchison

Amber Robot
2014-Oct-03, 10:20 PM
Ah, true, and I've actually seen something similar. There was a BBC documentary featuring a time-lapse view of the aurora borealis, in which a mirror-reversed Orion and Pleiades scooted by in the background from right to left. I have no idea why they would do that, but they did it.

Grant Hutchison

I believe that sometimes editors will swap the image if they feel it adds to the aesthetic they want. They're not always aware of the implications of doing so.

grant hutchison
2014-Oct-03, 10:32 PM
I believe that sometimes editors will swap the image if they feel it adds to the aesthetic they want. They're not always aware of the implications of doing so.That's presumably how they managed to get the whole Earth the wrong way round in Alien: Resurrection. Possibly the least aware editor in the entire history of cinema.

Grant Hutchison

Solfe
2014-Oct-03, 11:37 PM
I've never seen that.

The easiest one to think of is the various movie posters and art work for the book and/or movie "New Moon".

novaderrik
2014-Oct-05, 01:26 AM
That I can understand.
But those days are over, I'm afraid.
NGC is just using Carl Sagan's name and "Cosmos" to attract viewers.
The spirit of Carl Sagan and his original show don't fit into today's entertainment system any longer...

Seth McFarlane (the Family Guy guy) was also a producer on the show... he said that he loved the original growing up and he wanted to do his best to honor the look, feel, and contents of that show with updates for the modern audience... the "updates" seemed to mostly consist of things that fit into his (and Tyson's) worldview without thinking of how they fit into the context of the original series.

i think it would have been a better series if they would have spent less time talking about how the big bad religious people and "the man" held the scientists back and more time on what the scientists contributed to humanity..

Solfe
2014-Oct-05, 02:17 AM
The easiest one to think of is the various movie posters and art work for the book and/or movie "New Moon".

I guess we can add the latest episode of Doctor Who - "Kill the Moon". Full moon in the background, the Doctor calls it "a new moon". I am sure he was waxing poetical. :)

Trebuchet
2014-Oct-05, 04:52 AM
I guess we can add the latest episode of Doctor Who - "Kill the Moon". Full moon in the background, the Doctor calls it "a new moon". I am sure he was waxing poetical. :)

Waxing literal, I'd say. The moon hatched and the hatchling laid a new one. Not one of their better efforts.