But even after the light was modeled [...] the image still did not look right.
Part of the challenge was---we got the surface reflection of the Moon dust, we got the reflection off of the lunar module, we got all of that in place and properly modeled---we thought---but the image still didn't look quite right. There was some additional light source that was just missing...
They said that their computer model perplexingly didn't work until they found a solution in changing the albedo value of Armstrong's suit. But unless they experimentally derived that value themselves using instrumentation, then how can they be sure that they weren't simply moving a slider until it fixed their simulation, i.e. working backwards from a solution?
The same goes, to some extent, for the values of the lunar dust. It's impossible to experimentally confirm this stuff unless we go back to the Moon. That's the problem I have with using the photographic evidence as proof. It's the same reason I never really found the conspiracists' claims of photo trickery very convincing either.
In order to prove that the footage "could only have come from" the Moon's conditions, it's also necessary to prove the negative on Earth. The Nvidia rep says at 8:52 that they never attempted to prove the negative. They only attempted to prove that it can be done on the Moon. They didn't model the conditions with an atmosphere for comparison.
lighting [...] at the precise distance of the moon from earth
I'm confused. I didn't hear them say anything about using reflective light from the Earth in their model. Did you mean to say "the precise distance of the Moon from the Sun"? Is that significantly different than the distance from Earth to the Sun? Sometimes the Moon is farther away from the Sun than the Earth, and sometimes it's closer.
They said that their computer model perplexingly didn't work until they found a solution in changing the albedo value of Armstrong's suit. But unless they experimentally derived that value themselves using instrumentation, then how can they be sure that they weren't simply moving a slider until it fixed their simulation, i.e. working backwards from a solution?
The same goes, to some extent, for the values of the lunar dust. It's impossible to experimentally confirm this stuff unless we go back to the Moon. That's the problem I have with using the photographic evidence as proof. It's the same reason I never really found the conspiracists' claims of photo trickery very convincing either.
In order to prove that the footage "could only have come from" the Moon's conditions, it's also necessary to prove the negative on Earth. The Nvidia rep says at 8:52 that they never attempted to prove the negative. They only attempted to prove that it can be done on the Moon. They didn't model the conditions with an atmosphere for comparison.
I'm confused. I didn't hear them say anything about using reflective light from the Earth in their model. Did you mean to say "the precise distance of the Moon from the Sun"? Is that significantly different than the distance from Earth to the Sun? Sometimes the Moon is farther away from the Sun than the Earth, and sometimes it's closer.
Yes poor wording on my part.