NIKON's in Space?! Our VIRAL NASA Video & What Camera WE Would've Brought…RAWtalk 192

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: FroKnowsPhoto RAWtalk 192 – NIKON's in Space?! Our VIRAL NASA Video & What Camera WE Would've Brought…

Release Date: April 10, 2026
Host: FroKnowsPhoto (Jared), with Stephen
Main Theme: The unprecedented viral success of the FroKnowsPhoto YouTube video analyzing NASA’s Artemis 2 lunar mission photos, deep dives into photography’s role in modern spaceflight, gear choices by NASA, and what the hosts would take to space.

---

Episode Overview

This episode revolves around two key narratives:

• The explosive viral performance of their YouTube video dissecting NASA’s Artemis 2 lunar mission images and what made it so successful.
• A spirited discussion about the photographic gear NASA sends to space, including technical debates, user experience stories, and the hosts’ fantasy camera bags for a lunar mission.

Tone is passionate, irreverent, and geeky—full of both technical details and banter.

---

Key Discussion Points & Timeline

1. Viral Video: Anatomy of an Unprecedented Hit

[00:00 – 04:41]

• Jared and Stephen marvel at the YouTube video’s performance: “We’ve never had a video do what that video did in 17 years…It skyrocketed and went to the moon!” (Jared, 00:00)
• The video compared Artemis 2’s Earth photos (2026) with Apollo’s (1972). Initially considered a simple analysis, not expected to be a hit.

[13:16, 14:22, 16:21, Analytics Deep Dive]

• Viewing Stats: Reached 566,000 views in under 24 hours, peaking at 43,000 views/hour.
• Subscriber Gain: Over 2,100 new subscribers—what they usually get in a month.
• Revenue: Estimated CPM (cost per 1,000 views) at $17.75; projected video earnings around $5,000.
  • “I will keep following up and tell you what happens as the number goes up because we’ve never had a video do this.” (Jared, 32:55)
• Traffic Sources: 88% of views via YouTube recommendations, major spike from NASA’s Artemis 2 coverage crossover.

Memorable Moment:
“...my brain goes, well, MKBHD probably gets twice as many. Mr. Beast is probably doing like a million views an hour…Of course, you can’t compare to those people. But when you do—well, for us, it’s actually very good!” (Jared, 16:47)

---

2. Artemis 2: NASA’s Photo Coverage and Public Reactions

[05:26 – 15:30, 34:15 – 44:33]

• Historical Context: First human trip to the moon since Apollo 17 (1972).
• Discussion: The role of photography in the mission, mission communication sounding like a “photography Q&A,” and debates over government spending and priorities.
• NASA vs. SpaceX: NASA’s broadcast and camera coverage compared unfavorably to SpaceX's more polished, high-tech streams.
  • “Whoever was following along the rocket…you couldn't even see it. Like the camera angle wasn't right. It almost seems like someone was just handholding a camera…” (Stephen, 05:49)
  • “SpaceX does it. We should have technology where you literally touch the rocket, and it tracks it the whole freaking way.” (Jared, 06:08)

---

3. Photography Gear in Space: What NASA Used and Why

[08:13 – 12:49, 34:15 – 44:33, 46:39 – 59:10]

• Cameras & Lenses:
  • Nikon D5 (main workhorse, despite being 10 years old) vs. Nikon Z9 (used occasionally, brought as future-proof camera, lower usage due to late manifest addition)
  • Lenses:
    • 14-24mm f/2.8 (“super clean,” used for group shots/selfies)
    • 80-400mm f/4.5–5.6 (“the long lens,” primary for lunar shots, though not the sharpest at 400mm)
    • 35mm f/2D (“terrible lens,” but included due to weight constraints)
• Shooting Conditions:
  • Challenging conditions: shooting Earth on the shadow side (hence high ISOs—up to 51,200), darkness, shooting through thick glass.
• Settings & Execution:
  • Astronauts shot manually: “Almost every single photo was taken full manual…with auto white balance.” (Stephen, 12:30)
  • Astronauts are highly trained but not pro photographers; format and settings often dictated for reliability.

Memorable Moment:
“It’s not about Nikon, it’s not about Canon, it’s not about Sony. It’s about the right tool for the job. And they used the right tool because that is the only tool they had.” (Jared, 14:09)

• Payload Constraints:
  • Total extra payload in Orion capsule is ~100 kg/220 lbs beyond crew and essentials.
  • Every ounce counts: explains use of legacy gear proven to survive and function.
  • Flash usage inside the module was criticized: “Do not use the flash. Use the natural light coming from the fucking moon…” (Jared, 38:10)
• Funny Anecdotes:
  • Battery ejected across the capsule in zero gravity.
  • Astronauts confused about lens cap storage (Stephen, 13:16).
  • Astronauts floating the camera for selfies, using timer—with flash.

---

4. Comparing Artemis 2 and Apollo Photos: Internet Reactions

[08:13 – 11:49, 40:45 – 41:36]

• Viral controversy over Artemis’ “Blue Marble” photo being less dramatic than 1972’s:
  • “Why does it look so much worse than the one that was taken in 1972?” (Jared, 08:13)
  • Stephen jokes: “It’s the pollution. The earth is failing.”
  • Technical correction: The sun’s position resulted in very low light, requiring extreme ISO.
• Discussed internet nitpicking and public confusion about “Earthrise” vs. “Earthset,” “far side” vs. “dark side of the moon.”
  • “I just love people correcting us for little things like that.” (Stephen, 41:36)

---

5. Data, Demographics & Changing YouTube Habits

[25:26 – 31:00]

• Viewing Devices: Over 52% of views were on TV screens, which the hosts find both surprising and indicative of shifting online video habits—especially amongst older audiences. “People are using YouTube as if it’s Netflix or a streaming network.” (Jared, 26:00)
• Age/Gender: Majority of viewers aged 35+; male skew remains strong.
• Subscriber Value: 80%+ of the viral video’s views came from non-subscribed viewers.

---

6. What the Hosts Would Take to Space (If They Were Astronauts)

[47:35 – 55:12]

• Jared and Stephen dream up their personal “space camera bag” for a hypothetical lunar mission, with weight being a major constraint.
  • Stephen:
    • Top picks include Fuji GFX100, Hasselblad X system, or Sony A7R V with 100–400mm or 200–600mm for maximum resolution and dynamic range. Notes practical limitations—e.g., lens length, weight.
    • “In a perfect world, I’d probably bring the GFX100 Fuji…the issue is the longest lens on that system is 100–200. That’s kind of the sweet spot, but there’s no way you’d get that compression with the 400 that NASA took.” (Stephen, 48:56)
  • Jared:
    • Would want both a high-res medium format body (Phase One, Fuji) to shoot the moon/Earth, AND a lightweight, versatile mirrorless system with fast-wides for environment/crew photos.
    • “On the flip side, I’m gonna want a…mirrorless camera with some wide lenses. 14–24 inside the capsule…But I’m not in space. I’m not there.” (Jared, 52:07)

---

7. Nikon and NASA: Brand Impact and Publicity

[56:23 – 57:55]

• Discussion of how much PR value Nikon is getting from their gear being used on Artemis 2.
  • “I’m surprised [Nikon] haven’t talked about it more or put out a lot of press releases about it because I do feel like a lot of people are talking about Nikon right now.” (Stephen, 56:23)
• Noted that NASA uses only model numbers, never the actual brand in broadcasts.

---

8. Workflow, Cards, and Metadata in Space

[57:09 – 58:20]

• Card Management: Only ProGrade Iridium cards officially approved. Mention of a “community card” (shared among astronauts), and private cards, which seemed confusing.
• Metadata: No author/copyright embedded in the metadata, surprising the hosts.
• Calls for NASA to “release the RAW files”—as public documents, the hosts believe they should be downloadable by citizens.

---

9. Host’s NASA Experience & Reflections on Making Space Photography Content

[60:28 – 61:49]

• Jared’s past with NASA: Photographed Artemis 2 Commander Reid Wiseman at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab in 2019, with camera struggles prompting him to leave Nikon.
• NASA astronaut selection, training, and pay (~$104–$160K)—modest compared to the glamour, done “for the love of the game.”
• Reflections on the lightning-in-a-bottle nature of viral content: “It’s just a fluke…I knew this isn’t replicable…Let’s just keep doing us.” (Jared, 64:32)

---

Memorable Quotes

• On NASA’s Gear Choices:
  “The gear doesn’t matter up there. All that matters are the photos that are coming back that they’re getting. Photos that you and I…I mean, yes gear matters, of course, but I’m saying they are using what they could use at their disposal.”
  — Jared, [55:09]

• On Audience Reach:
  “This video is appealing to a wider audience, contributing to 12 times more views than usual.”
  — YouTube Analytics, cited by Jared [21:04]

• On the Photos Themselves:
  “That image was fucking impressive to me. Like, insane.”
  — Jared, describing the Earthset photo [42:18]

---

Timestamps for Notable Segments

• 00:00 – 01:21: Viral video milestone and overview
• 08:13 – 11:32: Public reaction to Artemis 2 images, ISO/settings analysis
• 13:16 – 15:30: Analytics and behind-the-scenes on making viral hits
• 25:26 – 27:17: Who’s watching—changing device habits and demographics
• 34:15 – 36:06: GoPros in space and NASA’s “outdated” gear discussion
• 38:00 – 38:44: Critique of flash use for astronaut selfies
• 47:35 – 55:12: What cameras would YOU bring to space?
• 56:23 – 57:55: Camera brand visibility and NASA PR

---

Additional Highlights

• Tech & Trivia:
  • Most images processed in Adobe Lightroom, not manufacturer RAW software.
  • Photo metadata confirms manual exposure, RAW workflow, and “odd” card handling.
• Community Response:
  • Viral video led to a flood of comments, including nitpicking of terminology (“far side” vs. “dark side”) and conspiracy comments from flat-Earthers.
• Humor & Banter:
  • Running jokes about “sphincter butter” as a code; musings about how “astronauts don’t have time for lens caps” and “what would it feel like to...in zero gravity?”

---

Summary Takeaways

• NASA’s space photography choices are driven by reliability, legacy, and payload limits—not by having the fanciest or newest gear.
• The public is passionately engaged with space photography, often without understanding the technical or environmental constraints.
• Virality on YouTube is unpredictable; lightning struck this time due to hot topics, great timing, and cross-platform discovery, not a repeatable formula.
• Hosts would choose high-res, full-frame, or medium format systems (if allowed), but recognize the pragmatic logic behind NASA’s gear manifest.
• Call to NASA: Release RAW files for public access!

---

Recommended for:

• Photographers interested in space and NASA gear choices
• YouTube creators curious about viral analytics
• Anyone fascinated by the intersection of science, technology, and photography, wrapped in humor and honest industry talk.

Transcript

[A]

Stephen, our video, it's going to the moon. We've never had a video do what that video did in 17 years because longer than froknowsphoto's been around, I've posted. But we've never had a video skyrocket and go to the moon like that

[B]

video did to infinity and beyond. For sure. Yeah. I have never seen views like that in the 13, 14 years that I've been working with you. Quite insane.

[A]

Yeah. We're talking about the video that I put up up that says why everyone is wrong. Artemis 2 verse Apollo's Earth Photos 2026 verse 1972 I won't say that it was a throwaway video that we were making, but it was one of those videos like when I analyzed the presidential portraits or something. It's something like that where people were talking about this image. Now we're going to dive deeper into the images in a second and I'm not going to dive into the analytics right now of this video, but I will be diving into how many views it's got, how many subscribers it's added, what the estimated revenue has been brought in so far on this because we've never seen numbers go to the moon like this on a video.

[B]

And speaking of numbers, if you're not following along, we hit basically half a million views in less than 24 hours. Pretty crazy.

[A]

Currently at 566,000 and still doing three or so thousand views a an hour, which is far cry from what it was at the height of 43,000 views in an hour. But we'll get to that when we get to that. But the whole reason I made the video was because of the photos that were put up by NASA. For those that aren't aware of or if you've been living under the freaking rock, I don't know what's happening, but the Artemis 2 mission took off like seven days ago at this point and and was on its way to the moon and we also got photos that it got of Earth when it could get the full Earth in the image. And then yesterday or two days ago, well, yesterday they started releasing images, but two days ago they were live streaming as they were going about to go around the moon and we heard all of the discussions they were having which made it seem like everything was about photography. Yeah, what settings, what camera, how to get the best shot. And that's pretty awesome to hear as a lover of photography.

[B]

Before Artemis 2, when is the last time NASA sent humans into space like an actual moon mission?

[A]

We haven't had A moon mission since the late 70s. Wow. You know, since the last Apollo, I think, was Apollo 17.

[B]

Yeah, Apollo 17, 1972.

[A]

Basically what I heard is like, why they stopped sending people to the moon. They said people stopped caring. Whereas the first. The first mission around the moon had like 600. It had like the entire planet watching, I bet. And by the end, it had less viewership than the super bowl would get. And so it just became something that they didn't do.

[B]

Rinse and repeat. I mean, how many times do you have to see the moon?

[A]

I know, but maybe if they just put a base on the moon back then or did something, it would have been, I don't know, you never know what scientific things would have come out of that. And I'm trying to tread lightly on where to go. Is like, you hear so much complaining about they spent this much money on the rocket. They did this. It was like the amount of money that NASA has in a budget is the same amount of money that the government spends in a day. They make up less than 2% of a budget of some kind in the United States. So they are really playing with peanuts when they have to go and do stuff. NASA is not what NASA used to be in terms of getting money from the government, but they still produce amazing results, though they are flying a spacecraft which is basically outdated. And SpaceX is doing a better job with their Falcon Heavy and their future massive rocket. That gets into a whole political thing, not like politics, but the politics of a government organization. I remember in high school that a teacher, we had this writing class and he's like, do it. You gotta write a report on something you love and you really are into. And he warned us, he said, if you report on something and you do a deep dive, you might find you're not happy with the results that you find. And I was like, I think that the space shuttle program was the greatest thing ever because they're able to go back into space. And then, you know, we didn't have the Internet yet.

[B]

Meanwhile, you find out it was all filmed in a Hollywood studio back in 1969.

[A]

We didn't have the modern Internet of information. And through the digging that I found, I started to understand that the space shuttle program did not meet the objectives that it was supposed to meet in terms of being able to go up and reuse the ship over and over at a quicker pace. It became years and I ended up going down the wrong thing. Anyway. The reason I bring that up is because the SLS was the Space Launch System was I believed believe something that George W. Bush put into play. And we're talking over 26 years ago at this point, about 20 some years ago. So they're using outdated shit. Anyway, let's talk about the photos.

[B]

Stephen, I do want to say before we move on to the photos, the SpaceX launch, the broadcast of the launch, the camera angles, everything, the clarity, so much better than NASA's. I mean, did you actually watch the launch live?

[A]

Yeah, I was on my phone at Passover dinner.

[B]

They missed the actual part where it lifts off the ground. It blacked out for a second and all of a sudden it's in the air.

[A]

Call that a fail.

[B]

I call it a giant fail. And whoever was following along the rocket as it was going into the sky, you couldn't even see it. Like the camera angle wasn't right. The guy's like. It almost seems like someone was just hand holding a camera, trying to follow along.

[A]

You know, the thing is moving fast and it is going on an arc. And it is hard to follow though.

[B]

But again, SpaceX does it.

[A]

We should have technology where you literally touch the rocket and it tracks it the whole freaking way.

[B]

I thought they had those giant special broadcast cameras for the launch.

[A]

Well, they're satellites. They're not satellites, they're telescopes basically, that follow there's tracking. And I'm sure the amateur trackers did a better job. But you have to understand, you know, you hear NASA and you think that they have the biggest budget in the world to hire everybody, and they don't. And I saw this firsthand when I was at the NASA Artemis launch the first time, that the people that are working that are doing the PR and the media and the social media are 20 somethings right out of college who aren't getting paid a lot of money to do what they're doing. So it's not like they're rocket scientists, all of them. So it's not like they have the money. And that's why when we get into the gear that's being used, that you will realize that it's not SpaceX. Look, the thing is, SpaceX is not a public company yet. They're gonna file for their IPO shortly in June. But they are able to blow shit up and start over again. If NASA blows something up, they have to stop for years before they can put something back into space. And so they just have to get it right. And it's just not as easy to do. And I'm not saying you're gonna put people's lives at risk. This had four astronauts lives at risk. That's huge.

[B]

They just don't have the RD funding that SpaceX has the unlimited funds for the most part. But I am spoiled by the SpaceX broadcast launch for sure.

[A]

Yeah. So anyway, the first images that started to come back were the blue marble shot, which in 1972, one of the Apollo missions took the blue marble photo and it became one of the most famous photos in the history of photography. And then NASA posts this photo and people start losing their shit in the negative way. Why is it, why does it look so much worse than the one that was taken in 1972?

[B]

It's the pollution. The earth is failing.

[A]

It's nothing to do with pollution. I mean, I looked at the image and I thought the same thing right off the bat. I'm like, why did they shoot this at 51200iso with a D5? And then my buddy Matt was like, oh, that's because the sun is on the other side. And the photo was taken without the

[B]

sun, the dark side of the Earth.

[A]

So the other one was full sun. And he's like, you can actually see stars there without the sun because it's not shooting into the light. And so the biggest thing I was like, why are they using D5s? They have Z9 up there. Why are you using a D5?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I even questioned like, why not a D6? Like why does it have to be a D5? I know that the D5 is.

[A]

Did they make a D6? Yeah, they did, didn't they?

[B]

Yeah, that was the last DSLR I'm pretty sure Nikon made. Correct?

[A]

Yeah, that's right. I had a D5. How quickly we. Well, I would say how quickly except for it's a 10 year old camera.

[B]

I know the D5 was like tried and true and tested and it works in that space environment. They know for a fact. So I'm assuming that's why. Also the D5, from a low light standpoint, it is one of the best full frame cameras, sensor wise for low light. But these days the sensors are so damn good in most of the cameras. I mean, we're talking like maybe a quarter stop difference in terms of full dynamic range and low light capability.

[A]

I will say the Z9 produces some super clean images even from a 45 megapixel sensor.

[B]

We've seen it from these pictures too, like 20,000 ISO. Some of the other pictures were even higher.

[A]

Yeah, it would have been a better choice. Now in the video that I made on YouTube, I was not Trying to debate what camera should have been used or get into a whole photography camera setting discussion and all of that. We have to. First, I'll do that here, by the way. We have to understand that the astronauts, they're not photographers. First, they're astronauts. They are literally trained in everything, including photography. They have people on the ground who are messaging them up over the comm systems, giving them support and answering questions. They are given the basics of what they need to do. And excuse me, as I get over the cold, they did a great job. There is no taking away from them from what they've done. And the 51,200 was the right setting. Now, sorry, let me say it wasn't the right setting. They were at F4. They could have been at 2.8 and dropped it down.

[B]

But regardless, I'm looking at the metadata right now and I mean, talk about darkness. They were shooting at a quarter second shutter speed again, 51200iso@f4. I mean, you're talking about extreme darkness there.

[A]

I believe in a thing called love the darkness. Just listen to the rhythm of my heart.

[B]

I mean, you're taking a picture of black for the most part. And the camera is using its gain settings internally to try and make something out of nothing. And that is why it looks like Swiss cheese at 51,200. But yes, you're right, you could have cut it in half at 2.8 or even another half at F2, if you

[A]

shot that at any. It doesn't matter. When the earth was, you know, five, 6,000 miles away, you could shoot it at any aperture and it's going to be in focus. I was going to say that could

[B]

be 0.1, if that's even possible.

[A]

It could have been 0.95 with the Noctilux. Talk about a waste of weight in space if they took that into space. Yep, yep. I was going to say that I was surprised that it actually found something to focus on. Oh, it's not very hard to focus in space.

[B]

Well, but again, this is. You're shooting like darkness, so I'm surprised there was enough Contrast there. The D5 is probably one of those cameras that goes down to like negative 6 EV, but again, that's rated for like a 1.2 aperture wide open lens, not an f4 lens. And speaking of f4, I bet you when they were all taught how to use these cameras, they were probably like F4 or more. You know, unless you're inside the cabin or something.

[A]

I mean, that's a 2.8. The 14 to 24 to 8.

[B]

Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying they probably said stop down to like F4 if you're shooting the moon or, you know, the Earth or whatever it may be, but it's so damn far away. It doesn't matter.

[A]

No, at that point it doesn't matter. And autofocus in space for this stuff doesn't matter either.

[B]

But looking at the metadata, I will give them credit where credit is due. Almost every single photo was taken full manual. I mean, we have auto white balance. I think that's really the only thing that's auto. I think on. On occasion I saw exposure comp with like a plus 2 EV value.

[A]

But yeah, that had to be an accident.

[B]

But for the most part, everything was shot manual.

[A]

I can't say that it's an accident because everything that NASA does is thought out and done by spec. I did find it funny though. This is a side note that when I saw a clip of the female astronaut and taking. Ejecting the battery from the camera and it shot all the way across the module because the spring, it popped out and there's zero gravity. So it just went shooting across.

[B]

I had a funny clip that I was gonna insert into that. The second video that we did where Christina, I believe is her name, she was trying to ask NASA where to put the lens caps. She's like, where should I stow these lens caps? I don't know where to put them.

[A]

Well, you know where they go. You put them in a pocket. That's where you always remember. Back right pocket for me. Back right pocket every time. So anyway, that's a photo that was first sent to everybody and it caused a shit storm. And so I decided to make the video talking about the differences and saying it's literally night and day and that video freaking went to the moon in terms of specs. Sorry, analytics. Should I get to that now, Stephen? And then we'll get back to the photo part. Cause this is what we're talking about today. We're talking about the NASA mission we're gonna get to. What cameras would we have taken up if we had the opportunity to go and do something similar? Because I don't, you know, it's not about Nikon, it's not about Canon, it's not about Sony. It's about the right tool for the job. And they used the right tool because that is the only tool they had. And they are also there. And I am not so lens wise.

[B]

I don't know about that. We'll talk about that later.

[A]

No, the 35. The 35 II does. I didn't even know that was a lens, to be honest with you. All right, so let's get into some of these analytics. Or as Stephen likes to call them, analytics. The video. I'm sitting there on the sofa after Born to Bowl. Born to bowl finishes. It's 9:40. So it's. Nah, it's not a plug. Ten minutes after Born to Bolt. Do you want to get into the plug right now, Steven?

[B]

No.

[A]

Boot camp. Bit. Ly.

[B]

Keep going.

[A]

Bitly may 30 fro squirrel. If you do sign up and let me just get to it. If you do sign up and you signed up from listening to this podcast, when you get the email that you have to email in, if you write in there sphincter butter, you will get a free signed print of your choice. I'm just doing that for see who signs up from. If someone signs up from the podcast. So from the frochive, you can pick any image. Again, that special code after you buy a ticket and send an email back is sphincter butter.

[B]

God, we don't do dumb comedy here. Definitely not.

[A]

Sphincter butter. Sounds like a very NASA thing. Steven, have you checked the sphincter butter today? Anyway, I was sitting on the sofa. It's 9:40, and it hit 129,000 views. And I sent you a screen grab. And I said, yeah, we've never seen this before. And it took four spikes up. Normally we see a bump.

[B]

Well, and before we saw that giant spike, the first initial spike, at least, it was like a 6 of 10 video. Not doing great as I expected. I assumed it was more like a burner video. Hey, let's get like 30, 40,000 views maybe out of it. What, did I spend, like, three hours editing it? If that. It was a very quick, like, let's just turn it around, get it out. It's topical.

[A]

Yeah. Just to. Just to inform people on my thoughts and some of the facts. Yeah, that was the whole point.

[B]

I did not expect it to do what it did.

[A]

No, I never expected. And you also didn't see me celebrating. I was just more dumbfounded that it's been seven in 17 years. I never had a video skyrocket and go to the moon ever. Never, never, ever, ever have I seen 43,000 views in an hour. And then, of course, my brain being my brain goes, well, MKBHD probably gets twice as many. Normally on every video, you can't celebrate your own victories.

[B]

You always have to compare yourself?

[A]

No. And Mr. Beast is probably doing like a million views an hour or less or more, which is insane. Of course, you know, you can't compare to those people. But when you.

[B]

When you do.

[A]

Yeah, well, when they're used to getting that stuff, it becomes second nature. So when we get 100,000 views, we're like, yeah, that's actually very good for us. So if we see 50, we're like, yeah, that's about right. Not in an hour, though.

[B]

And to put that into perspective, we normally see on a good video, what, 2500 an hour? 3000 maybe.

[A]

Well, when it starts out, you get 5, 6, 7000 maybe.

[B]

But continuous.

[A]

Oh, yeah. Not continuous. Yeah, I mean, this was getting shot into the ether. So let me explain what I think happened. And it's not something you can replicate. It's not something you can copy and try to do again. The key is just.

[B]

Do you.

[A]

You have an idea for a video? You. You do it. You have. You. You just put the content into the world. Now you do it smartly. Now, this was already like two days after, because I filmed it on a Sunday. I filmed it on. On Easter, right? Maybe Jesus was behind me and like, Jesus helps your video go to the moon. He has risen. Our video has risen.

[B]

Steven, come to the right side of religion, my little Jewish friend.

[A]

Fuck that. He never said. He is like, I am a Jew. Stay away. They crucified me. I'm gonna rise like your video. So I wanted to just make a video to inform people, to share my knowledge. I did some research. I, you know, practiced a little bit. And then I filmed the video and we came up with a good thumbnail. Sorry, I came up with a good thumbnail. I did use chat GPT to make the 2026.

[B]

It's very obvious.

[A]

Well, I needed it to help me make that. It worked, though. I needed something that just wasn't basic shitty font that I normally use.

[B]

Yeah, I didn't mind it, but I could tell right away that it was definitely chatgpt. Mainly because I know your Photoshop skills are a little limiting.

[A]

Yeah, but you wouldn't make that. You wouldn't be able to illustrate that yourself either.

[B]

It would just take me a long time for sure. Not five seconds that ChatGPT could do.

[A]

Yeah, no, I did that. 2026 to 1972. Now, I cut out the earth, so I put them there. I did cut myself out in the photo and put it on front of a starry background that was generative AI just to put the stars in there, because Whatever. Anyway, so the title that I came up with is why everyone is wrong Artemis 2. I already read the title earlier and what I think happens is it was the hottest thing happening right then and there. They were live streaming to millions of people. And it's possible that our video then got recommended to these people that are watching NASA for long amount of times.

[B]

But even the NASA live streams didn't even have that many views. Or the recap videos, I should say. Well, that's highlight videos.

[A]

Yeah, but their live stream had almost a million people concurrently on there.

[B]

I would just expect that their highlight videos would have easily a million views. But they were like 100,000 maybe.

[A]

I think what might have happened, you know, another thing that might have happened is if someone spent an hour or two watching the NASA missions or over the past couple days has looked at a lot of space stuff that's telling the algorithm that space is important. And then when the video started to do well, meaning it was getting a lot of watch time, people were clicking it and staying and watching. That's letting YouTube know that this is good, we should show it to more people. But never did. I think it would be 569,000 views.

[B]

I think I was telling you that night I'm like, we're wake up tomorrow to half a million views probably. And I think it was like 350.

[A]

Yeah, like 3:20 something. And it just keeps going and it's still about 3,002. And every hour it's just the trifecta

[B]

at the end of the day, like you know, perfect title, perfect thumbnail, great timing, super topical subject, obviously. And it just worked out in our favor for once. For once it finally did.

[A]

What about my sexy hair, Stephen?

[B]

Well, it was all the hair. Take it all back. It was all.

[A]

Yeah. So I want to go through some of these other analytics just because very few people ever share the behind the scenes of the analytics just to get the numbers. Now YouTube tells us this nice exclamation point. This video is appealing to a wider audience, contributing to 12 times more views than usual.

[B]

Yeah, no shit.

[A]

Our average views are like 50,000. So it's like. Or maybe it's even less than that, but I don't know. So it's at 569,007. Oh, sorry, 569.7 thousand views, which is 521,800 more than usual. The watch time shows us in. Watch time in hours is 40,000 and normally. So that's 36,000 more than normal. It's added 2100 subscribers to the channel.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

So we Normally get about 2,000 subscribers a month. Now. We normally lose subscribers only when I wear a specific T shirt or necklace. And people are little bitches. So there's that and then of course there's the revenue. But I'm gonna save the revenue for a few minutes later because it's not fully updated. It's only updated for. It says 129,000 potential views that could be paid. So I think it's probably gonna be double or two times and a half the number that is here. Let's move on to Reach because there's a. There's something in there that was fascinating. Google search accounted for 38.9% of the external sites that drove traffic. So people probably searching Artemis Photos or Earth Photos.

[B]

Well, I was telling you that I was searching Artemis 2 photos and your video would come up like immediately as the top search result, which I've never really seen before.

[A]

That's interesting.

[B]

If you look a little farther down in the Reach section, it says content suggesting this video. NASA's Artemis 2 crew flies around the moon. The official broadcast, that one.

[A]

That's what happened.

[B]

That is the top suggested video that people are watching this from. And then. Yeah, right below that, it's the live mission coverage. Yeah. So it's basically being suggested like you

[A]

said on NASA's videos. That was me just guessing that just from experience and here's the facts telling us that.

[B]

But it's saying it's only 7% of the total traffic is coming from those suggested videos. Yeah, most of it is coming from the home screen and browse features. So you know when you end a video and a video pops up suggesting the next video like that or just people on their home screen and having

[A]

recommended videos, YouTube recommendations, which is if you can get into the recommended feed. Recommendations feed. That's What. What matters. 88.6% of the views came from YouTube recommendations. YouTube Home.

[B]

80.

[A]

So 81%.2% came from YouTube Home, which means when you go to your home screen, you go to YouTube.com it put this video in front of you to watch. So 500 5,000 views from YouTube recommendations. And one that's interesting is Nextup. Sorry, sorry. Up Next accounted for 7.4%. That's 42,200 views. Next up is like you finished watching the live stream from.

[B]

From.

[A]

From NASA or somebody else's video. It shows our video and then our video then comes up next.

[B]

Yeah, that's the one we were mentioning earlier.

[A]

Yeah. So that's crazy. Average view time is 4 minutes and 16 seconds, which is 38.2%, which is slightly lower than we normally get, but that's still pretty good.

[B]

And the click through rate, the CTR was a little lower too, right?

[A]

Yeah, well, the more, the more impressions, the lower the rate. But with so many people watching. So if you get 500,000 views and people are watching and engaging YouTube instantly is like, this is good, let's show this to more people. We could sell more ads against this. And that's what happens.

[B]

That's why I never care about the CTR metric. I just feel like it's always all over the place, never equates to actual views half the time.

[A]

Well, it does though, because if your click through rate is super low at the beginning, that means people aren't clicking on the video when it's served to them. And that's telling YouTube that your video is dead.

[B]

Yeah, but I've seen videos do nothing in the first few hours and then skyrocket after. Yeah, you know, I mean, even the video we just put out last night, which is the second NASA video, that one's still doing decent and it did nothing overnight. And now it's starting to pop up because same thing is happening, it's getting suggested people are searching for it all the above.

[A]

Well, that was one of the debates is should we have waited to put it up? But I don't know, we don't need to even talk about that audience. This is the metric I found to be super interesting device type because it splits between tv, computer, mobile phones and tablets. Did you look at these metrics? Are you looking at them right now?

[B]

I'm looking at them right now.

[A]

So I can't test you and think which one is the highest.

[B]

Sorry, I'm following along, I'm trying to.

[A]

Yeah. The lowest one, as expected these days, is a tablet. The second lowest, which is actually interesting, is mobile phone.

[B]

That blows my mind.

[A]

20%, computer, 21.4%. But making up 52.6% of viewership was TV. Wow. People watching on their TV. This has been something that has changed over the years. It was computer, computer, computer, then mobile flipped it and took more away from the computer. Now the TV is taking both because people are using YouTube as if it's Netflix or a streaming network. That's why when I showed you those good, good golf videos the other day that are three hours long, it's because people are using it as entertainment and sitting and watching this stuff on their couches.

[B]

I wonder if it's just that particular video and that particular type of audience, that demographic watching a space launch and wanting to know more about space. I'm not sure. Looking at other videos that we've done, most of the number one device type is either the computer or the mobile phone.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Case in point, the latest fix that we did, the April Fool's fix, that one. The computer is number one at 32%. Mobile phone is second at 31.8%. Basically the same. And the TV is third at 25%.

[A]

Well, that's almost parody.

[B]

It's almost split across the board.

[A]

Yeah, that's pretty good. But here I might have an answer to why this is the case. On this one it's age and gender. So let's look at age and gender. We generally have a very large female audience of 100%. Only women watch. I'm kidding. Women don't only watch. We usually have like 3%, but we got 7 1/2% are female. 92.3%, 1 are male, 0.3% are Subaru drivers. I haven't said that in a while. I saw two Subaru drivers on the subway yesterday, Steven, and I thought of you. Actually I thought of Dan, but I was like, yeah, they drive Subarus. There's no doubt in my mind. No doubt. Breakdown of age. So 13 to 17 only accounted for 1.3%. 18 to 24, 1.8%. 24 to 34 was 10.1%. 35 to 44 were over 20%. 45 to 54 is 25.9%. Almost 26% of the viewers were between 45 and I guess that's my demographic. Holy shit. Because I'm 45 and then 55 to 64, 24% and 65 plus is 16.5%. It's everybody basically over 35 older people

[B]

that are used to watching content on a giant tv. Basically.

[A]

But that's good.

[B]

I'm not mad about it. I just. I'm looking at other videos now and it pretty much is split almost across the board. The same way, like I read earlier, like 30 to 33% between phone and computer. And then that TV is always around that 20 to 25%. But it's always in third for the most part. Unless some of our long form content, the really long stuff, the TV tends to tick a little higher.

[A]

Take a look at the Paris vlog and Goodbye Canon. And then. And then do that while I talk about these other analytics.

[B]

Well, I'm looking at it right now actually, that now that you bring it up and computer is number one there at 37% it's a longer video. Computer is not TV.

[A]

See, Jared wasn't fucking listening. His brain heard. His brain heard computer and thought, yeah, he's saying tv, why I failed in fucking school all the time. Because you say it and I think I hear what I wanted to hear and I failed.

[B]

Yeah, computer is first but TV is second at 31% followed by mobile phone at 20% so it's flipped there.

[A]

Okay, it's not bad.

[B]

So long form content I think usually is watched on the TV. But I will say those two videos that we put out are both only like 12, 15 minutes long. They're not really long form in my opinion enough to turn on my TV and watch it directly and solely on there. Now me Personally, I watch 99.9% of YouTube on my phone and honestly it's probably most of it is spent on the toilet or something when I get time, which is rare these days.

[A]

You shouldn't be on the toilet for that long. You need a toto.

[B]

Well that's why I'm watching like 5 minute videos and sped up in 2x speed. I'm rarely watching. I always tell you like less is better because I'm never watching like a over 10 minute video these days. Just because my life right now where I'm at, I don't have much free time. That's not saying everyone's like that. I just know personally I don't have the time to watch really long form content on YouTube. I barely can catch up on my normal shows and movies and stuff like that these days.

[A]

Movies, quit movies and you'll be fine.

[B]

I love movies, I do, I love watching a good movie than a YouTube video for example, unless it's a long lawn video, that's a different story, especially

[A]

this time of year time for lawn videos.

[B]

But yeah, TV wise, never ever watch YouTube personally unless it's for my daughter, like Ms. Rachel. Obviously that was all YouTube but now she's on Netflix so I would fire up Netflix and watch it on there instead.

[A]

That's terrible. Anyway, watch time from subscribers. This is interesting. Subscribers. Only 18% of subscribers accounted for the

[B]

watch Time subscribers are dead.

[A]

Well, subscription, yeah, subscribers don't matter as much as as they used to. But not subscribed. Were 82% of the people that watched the video accounting to watch time now in terms of demo geographics, the United states accounted for 35.3% with Canada at 4% followed by United Kingdom at 3.1, Australia at 2.2, Germany coming up at.09%.0.9%. Oh God. And now let's get to the revenue because I know people want to hear about revenue. So this video has accounted for. Let's see. CPM stands for cost per 1,000 clicks. $17.75. CPM is pretty good. I would like to see a 30 or 40, 40% dollar CPM. That would be amazing. But in terms of watch page ads, it's saying $1342.41 and that is based off of it says 121,997 estimated monetized playbacks. So what a monetized playback means is a video where an ad actually ran. You do not see ads on every single video. It is all based off of your viewing. If you just watched a lawn care ad or Ms. Rachel or. Well, Ms. Rachel shouldn't have ads because it's for kids. But a lawn care video, if an ad ran in a certain amount of time and you go and watch one of my videos, you might not see an ad pop up. That's just the nature of how YouTube works. So it's based off of 121,000, almost 122,000 monetized playbacks and also includes people that are YouTube Red. There is a percentage formula that you get paid advertising for that, but the majority of are just the ads running now. That is just for the. For April 5th to April 6th or April 6th to April 7th. We are still waiting for the rest of the metrics to catch up. It's possible we have another 300 or could be 350,000 possible monetizable views, which means this video could make close to $5,000 maybe. So I will share the analytics I was sharing as the stuff was going, you know, to the moon as it was happening. And I will keep following up and tell you what happens as the number goes up because I want to see where it goes because we've never had a video do this.

[B]

Have you seen by the way, speaking of ad revenue, the new ads that pop up now on at least on the mobile phone in like the bottom left corner and you have to dismiss them to get them off the screen when watching a YouTube video. It's very, very annoying. That's YouTube just started that up recently and I can't stand it because it doesn't just pop up and you can skip it or something like that. It pops up and stays popped up until you dismiss it.

[A]

I can see the comments now. Why don't you pay for YouTube Red?

[B]

It's basically Like a banner ad.

[A]

Do you don't. You don't pay for YouTube Red?

[B]

I do not know.

[A]

Me either. I make all this money from YouTube and I don't pay the $10 or whatever it is a month to have YouTube Red.

[B]

I honestly don't really mind the ads that much. I'm just so used to it now. I mean, it's still better than watching five minutes of of ads on traditional cable tv.

[A]

It also doesn't get away from the baked in ads that we do. So you could pay this money, but you're not getting away from our preset plugs. Let's shift gears back to the pictures. Because the real pictures from the Artemis mission really occurred when the capsule was approaching the moon and then going around the moon, so going further than any other humans have ever gone before. And roughly, I believe they said that they were roughly 4,000 miles away from the moon when the photos were being taken.

[B]

Mind blowing. It seems like they're so much closer now. I think Apollo 8 was way closer to the moon's surface.

[A]

60 to 70 miles.

[B]

Oh wow.

[A]

Yeah, they were much closer. So this is where the debate starts to happen with the cameras. They took up the streaming video that was coming back from the GoPros that were mounted terrible GoPro Hero Fours, by the way.

[B]

What are they on now? 10, 12, 13.

[A]

I think they're on 13, right.

[B]

I don't get it. Why, why NASA? Why?

[A]

Because NASA doesn't have a lot of money. I remember when I was in the Orion capsule because when I was at NASA I got to go in the freaking capsule and they were setting up the GoPros, right? So they have a test capsule to test everything. They run the wires because everything's redundant. They check everything. They have to check everything for weight because every ounce matters. When you're trying to launch a payload, you have to meet a certain threshold or keep it under a certain area because if you don't and you're overweight or something, you're not going to make it through the atmosphere or off the pad. I don't know. I'm not a rocket.

[B]

These GoPros, by the way, are 12 years old.

[A]

Yeah, and they were shitty then. They were shitty then and they're shitty now.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's where the small sensor discussion comes into play. That's where reaching for the iPhones. Now what I hope, what I hope these astronauts get to do when they land, I hope that they took personal photos against my when they were done taking real photos. Cuz I do call Real cameras, real photos. I hope that Apple comes knocking and pays them for like backgrounds, pays them to make a commercial if they're allowed to get paid to do it. I would love to see them get paid for that because, you know, they're on a government salary of. I'm sure they get paid well as astronauts these days, but I would be really curious to see if they could get paid for that.

[B]

Well, did you see that they actually took a real picture, quote unquote with the D5 and a 14 to 24 after you kind of, you know, put them to shame about taking a selfie with the iPhone. You know, it just came out like last night.

[A]

There is a good possibility that they watched the video on the freaking Artemis. I did get a text from an unnamed source at NASA. I will not name who watch the videos and they are very high up in the NASA organization. It is possible, Stephen, I will take credit. I will take credit.

[B]

I mean, someone might have mentioned it at NASA for them to do it. But it's not like the astronauts were watching the video all the way in space.

[A]

Well, they could because they have a laser connection. People don't know that they're using lasers to beam back all the data like terabytes a second.

[B]

Yeah, so they took, Let me see. It was taken on April 7, 2026. So after that video was released.

[A]

Put that in the chat. I want to see it here.

[B]

It's right here. Here's one of them.

[A]

Because I want to see this. I haven't, I haven't seen what you're talking about. Let's see.

[B]

There's four total pictures and they did exactly what you mentioned and suggested. They basically floated the 14 to 24, put a timer on and said, cheese.

[A]

It's really bright in there.

[B]

Yeah, it almost looks like they used a flash.

[A]

It almost looks like they used a flash.

[B]

Wait, let me see. They did.

[A]

They had to use a flash because look at the shadows on the wall.

[B]

They did flash fired. Yep. I'm looking at the EXIF data now.

[A]

So personally, guys, let me send this back to you. Do not use the flash. Use the natural light coming from the fucking moon that's popping in there. Like that's what I would have done because it looks real. When you start popping this flash. That's just a straight on camera flash flash. It's not going to look good. So NASA guys, if you're listening, could you please redo it, turn the camera back around, use the natural light that you have. It's going to look so much Better on camera, flash just looks so fake and so amateurish, it's not even funny.

[B]

I'm very surprised, coming back to that weight conversation, how much you can bring payload wise, that they would add a flash to the manifest. I mean, that takes up a decent amount of weight for something that's really not needed. Yeah, like, I'd rather throw another lens in there or even two flashes weigh a good amount anyway, you know, they

[A]

listened to me, which is great. They probably studied my videos. They probably studied before they went up my videos. But what was really cool the other day, sitting here just listening to the communications of them saying. Well, they kept saying long lens, which annoys the piss out of me. Just call it the zoom lens. But they call it the long lens. That's their. Their terminology for the 80 to 400, which is honestly a piece of shit.

[B]

Discontinued. Been discontinued for quite a while.

[A]

Yeah, because it's an F mount, it's an ED lens. Now, it was a great lens back in the day because 80 to 400, what a range. What's it, 4.5 to 5.6, something like that. It's not actually a bad aperture for that lens. It's not a bad lens, but you might look, remember, they're shooting through glass, and this is space glass. Mind you, it's probably super thick. Not only are they doing that, but when you zoom out to 400 with that lens, you are not getting the sharpest images that you would ever get from a different type of 400 millimeter. But obviously they weighed the pros and cons, no pun intended, of taking up an 80 to 400 zoom long lens versus other prime lenses.

[B]

Well, and I looked at a lot of the metadata for most of the photos that came in, and I was wondering, are they shooting mostly on the long end or mostly on the wide end? And it's kind of all over the place. So they really do need a decent, versatile zoom lens like this. I mean, there were many photos taken at 80, and I would say more photos were taken on the wide end than the long end.

[A]

I will say that that 80 shot, that my favorite picture was done at 80 millimeters. I believe it was probably done at the same time they did. The other people corrected me and said it was the Earth.

[B]

It's the Earth set. It's the Earth setting, not rising. So we call it the Earthrise because it mimics the same Earthrise photo from back in the day. That's everyone's correcting up.

[A]

Yeah, suck my balls.

[B]

Well, real quick, that's one Thing I learned from the comment section also that it's not called the Dark side of the Moon. It's the far side of the Moon, and there are a lot of flat Earthers out there.

[A]

Oh, I just. I stopped reading comments because generally, if you have a video go viral, you're getting out of your sphere of influence. So the people that are commenting don't have any say. Any stake in you, so they'll just say whatever they want.

[B]

The last thing I learned was that it's impossible to photograph the Moon from that angle on Earth. Because you had mentioned it's just a picture of the Moon. You can take it from Earth just like any other photo of the Moon, blah, blah, blah. And they're like, well, technically you can't, because the Moon rotates in sync with its orbit, so that same side is always facing us. Not the one that they shot.

[A]

That wasn't what I was talking about.

[B]

I know what you were talking about.

[A]

I was talking about literally the Moon.

[B]

I just love people correcting us for, like, little things like that.

[A]

Yeah. So anyway, what I was saying is the shot that was done at 80 millimeters was very similar to the Earth set. It was the same framing, but One was at 401 was at 80, and the one at 80. The one I'm talking about is you've got the Moon taking up, like, three quarters of the frame. So it's perfectly symmetrical. You have total pitch blackness of certain parts of the far side of the Moon. And then you have the gradation as it gets brighter and brighter near the top. And then you have Earth setting over the left shoulder. That image was fucking impressive to me. Like, insane.

[B]

It really was. And again, looking at the metadata, like, I kept thinking, like, they could have brought a better lens, blah, blah, blah. But a lot of it was between, like, 80 and 200 mil. Like, more on that wide side. I thought like, maybe a 180 to 400. But again, most of it was like 80 to 200, if that. So they would have lost all of those images. They would have never been able to take that photo specifically because they only had, what, a 14 to 24 to 8F mount, along with the 35, 35F 2D and AFD lens from back in the day that doesn't even focus when it's Adapted to a Z9.

[A]

That's a terrible lens.

[B]

So they had to manually focus all those shots. And Most of the Z9 shots were taken with that lens. Yeah. Like, why not 35.1.8g? Yeah, it's a little more. It's 100 grams, I think more. We're talking like maybe not even quarter pound, but. But still.

[A]

Yeah, I was just. I googled this or sorry, chat GPT. It says the actual extra payload capacity inside Orion is tiny. About 100 kg or 220 pounds of additional payload beyond crew and systems.

[B]

Wow, that's really not much.

[A]

So extra person, basically. Yeah. I mean they need food, they need other stuff. So obviously weight plays a role. Pretty sure they were shooting raw. There's no reason they would be shooting jpeg. They have to be getting the RAW data. And you said you saw it in the EXIF data somewhere, so.

[B]

Yeah, when I look at the EXIF data on Flickr, it specifically says preserved file name at the bottom of the metadata and it reads the file name and then it ends with the extens. So I assume, I mean that has to mean that it was shot RAW and then converted in JPEG. Everything was edited in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 15 on a Windows machine. Your favorite boo. I just question like, when they did edit these photos, are they using the Adobe standard profile? Are they using a Nikon camera matching profile? Why aren't they using NX Studio for proper color rendering?

[A]

No one wants NX Studio.

[B]

I'm just saying like when it really comes to product proper color, you really should be using the manufacturers hit it with Skittles. But like, are they doing any major edits or is it just like slap it on, do a couple tweaks and export it? You obviously have to edit it if it's a RAW file. I'm just curious how they're editing it.

[A]

I just say release the RAW files and let us have a data set.

[B]

Release the RAW files.

[A]

Which they should release the RAW files. It's government. We should be able to get access to that at some point. I'm sure I could request it from NASA and possibly get it at some

[B]

point back to the payload discussion. The other thing I questioned was the Z9 in the first place. Why not bring a Z8 which is nearly a pound lighter, and then they could have on top of that, you know, brought a different lens or two.

[A]

It's not maybe as rugged, smaller battery. So now you're. Now you have to take up a different type of battery.

[B]

So I thought about the battery, but then I was assuming that they have tons of solar power up there that they can charge everything on. But I obviously don't know. I just know it's gonna be much lighter with a Z8 and it's also weatherproof just as much for the most part as the Z9. Same exact guts.

[A]

Internally, the photos I was most disappointed in were the photos taken inside of the Orion. So either they used their cell phone to take a shitty picture or they were using the 35F 2D to take random pictures of the people looking out of the portholes. I personally, if they weren't currently using the 14 to 24 because I don't know what I don't know. So I don't want to be like they should have done this. I'm just saying that this is what if they had the ability to do. Maybe that's why they didn't. Maybe the 35 wasn't in use by one of the other people at the portholes and they would have been able to use the 11 to 24. I would have liked an 11 to 24 in there to just do the wide shots to establish the scene with none of the lights on. Going with the natural lights. What did I say?

[B]

11 to 24.

[A]

Oh, I. Yeah, for that. What? The 11 to 24 is F4. That's. Sorry, I'm still in canon world. Yeah, I meant the 12 to 24 from Nikon 14.

[B]

14 to 24.

[A]

What did I say? 12.

[B]

12. That's a Sony.

[A]

That's a Sony. It's a 14 to 24 that I owned.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Two versions of it got so old that I replaced it because I was like, let me get a newer zoom just in case. But yeah, I would have used the 14 to 24. 2.8. I mean but I'm not in space. I'm not there.

[B]

The other thing I questioned was most of the images were taken with the D5 and I know that's more of a low light monster for sure.

[A]

That's what they were supposed to do on this mission.

[B]

Really?

[A]

Yeah. Well, the mission was use the D5.

[B]

I know that Z9 was an afterthought pretty much. They had to fight to throw it on last minute.

[A]

Well, the Z9 was brought on because that's what they'll be using on the moon. But that picture of the moon. Holy Jesus God. Done with the Z9. The solar eclipse.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Holy Jesus God. Does that look incredible.

[B]

And that I think was only 1600 ISO. That was one of the cleanest files that they sent back.

[A]

Beautiful. Just, just beautiful.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Mind blowing. If you're trying to follow along, if you haven't checked out any of the photos, you can Simply just Google Artemis 2 photos, check out their Flickr stream Check out the actual NASA official government page. They have a stream there as well. Gives you all the metadata, gives you everything you need. Full res files, you can download them, Pixel, peep, do whatever you want. It's really, really interesting. Yeah.

[A]

Let's transition into what would you have taken if you were going into space to take photos? Now mind you, I'll be allowed to take more weight because I'm a svelte figure of 184 pounds of muscle. So I can trade off some of that muscle in exchange because muscle is. Is less heavy than flubber.

[B]

What are you trying to say?

[A]

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about fat astronauts. You don't see them because it costs too much to put them into space.

[B]

That is true.

[A]

And they wouldn't fit through the hatch.

[B]

I'm sure they're concerned about health issues too. While in space they need perfect specimens.

[A]

I could just think of wall E up in space. Hey, would you yank one off in space? What would that feel like? You think that feels any different in weightlessness?

[B]

Oh my God. No comment.

[A]

No, I mean, shit, think about it. How would you do it?

[B]

You do realize this is like an open area? The Orion?

[A]

No, no, they have a bathroom. Oh, they have a toilet.

[B]

This time that isn't working right.

[A]

Not working. But wait, I'm trying to do the Silicon Valley thing. Anyway, what would you take into space if you were tasked? Steven, you are the fourth astronaut going on the Artemis 2 mission to take photos around the moon. What are you taking and why?

[B]

See, I. I have a couple options just because some of them are theoretically sound good, but at the same time don't make sense because of the lens selections. So for example, like in a perfect world, I'd probably bring the GFX100 Fuji, like the version 2 or the S version, just because that is close to medium format. I mean it's kind of in between that full frame 35 mil and an official medium format sensor. It's a low light monster. It's much better than it's rated, like one of the highest on photos. The Photons website. When it comes to like low light,

[A]

you also don't really need to. I mean the moon is really bright and the Earth is bright.

[B]

We've seen most of these images that are coming out are 20,000, ISO 51,000, 240,000.

[A]

But they also shot a lot at F8.

[B]

Sure, but with medium format you'd certainly be shooting at like F8 stop down for sure.

[A]

I just wouldn't even know where to focus. Do you focus on the moon or do you focus on the Earth?

[B]

And speaking of focus, I wouldn't really be concerned about it because it's just, you know, giant object in front of you. Yeah, the Fuji shouldn't have a problem with that because I know they should have a problem. We've hit on focus in the past with that. But the issue is the longest lens that that System has is 100 to 200. And in 35 mil terms that's about an 80 to 160 equivalent. So yeah, I know that was kind of the sweet spot for most of the images they took. There's no way you would get that compression with like the 400 that they took with the Nikon. Or I would do the Hasselblad X system, but there's only 100 millimeter lens available. That's the longest focal length they have on that system. So that's kind of out the window. Canon I know, has a couple of those dedicated ASTRO cameras like the EOS ra. And I think there's another one too. I think what I would take at the end of the day would probably be one of the best sensors ever made. The Sony A7R V with like 100 to 400 or they're 200 to 600 or maybe even go nuts and take the 400 to 800. All those lenses are fairly light.

[A]

Can't take the 400 to 800.

[B]

I think the 408 hundreds just, it's not a piece of. I just think it's, it's too limiting.

[A]

That's overkill. That's unnecessary.

[B]

I wish it was like canon, like the 200 to 800, but that's also kind of a shittier lens.

[A]

Yeah, I would never recommend that up in space either.

[B]

But I do think like the 80 to 40, that range seems to be the appropriate range. So Maybe the Sony 100 to 400 makes sense.

[A]

Canon's got a 1 to 5.

[B]

Canon has a 1 to 5. The R5.2 would be another option or something like that with the 1 to 5. Or you know what, how about the Nikon P 1100?

[A]

Oh yeah, we shot the moon with that. We shot Saturn with that thing.

[B]

Yeah, they could zoom in on us from Orion.

[A]

Yeah, so I'd like more resolution personally.

[B]

And that's, that's what I opted for too. Like all those cameras that I just listed are super high res.

[A]

Like, like I would think I would take two systems. I know that gets complicated, but probably taking the Fuji gfx or maybe you take up one of those hundred megapixel actual medium format sensors that NASA has. Who, who used to make it? The Leaf. Was it Leaf? What were those cameras? My. What was my NASA photo taken with?

[B]

Phase one?

[A]

Yeah, the phase ones, they don't exist anymore.

[B]

Well, like the IQ4 is one of the best sensors ever made.

[A]

Yeah. So I'm talking about like the biggest sensor to do that. So you don't need speed. Right. You just need to be able to bang out a bunch of shots. You don't need the super speed, but that's for focusing on like Earth and the moon and those creatives things. On the flip side, I'm gonna want a dslr, sorry, a mirrorless camera with a bevy of some wide lenses and like maybe the 1414 inside the capsule. You know, maybe something like that. 28 to 70 is probably not the right choice up there. That's too heavy and it's not the best range.

[B]

See, I think, I think choosing a lens for inside the capsule would be like an afterthought for me. I would definitely be focusing more on like obviously shooting the moon itself and the earth and all that.

[A]

And you know, me being the way that I am, I focus on the subjects, photographing and doing their thing. So I would try to get cool astronaut portraits and I would have, let's just say, I mean, I guess I'd have the 10 to 20, which is an F4, but I would want some 12 or 14 glass, maybe some VCM stuff just to give me some more creative freedom. Like a 214 or a 3514 and then call it a day. Maybe not the 35, maybe the 2414 inside there and just really focus on getting those cool shots. Now I would have time to get those shots on the way back and on the way to. So, you know, and then you could get more creative later on. But that's, you know, something medium format, but then something versatile as well.

[B]

And speaking of medium format, I'm looking at the test charts from photos to photons, and they have their whole list of cameras in order from best to worst when it comes to maximum dynamic range. And that phase one IQ4 is the top camera, that 150 megapixel sensor. And then right below that we've got like the Hasis, the Fuji GFX1 hundreds. The A7V is up there too, along with the A7R III. They're one of the only few 35 millimeter cameras that are almost matching medium format quality when it Comes to dynamic

[A]

range, I don't know that the Sony would make it off the pad in one piece.

[B]

And then the R3 is right there, along with the R5 and the Leica M11, the D850 from Nikon. But a lot of the 35 mil start to hit around that area.

[A]

Yeah, I don't think the Z9 is a bad choice. I think if we were forced to take a Z9, then I'd want a 14 to 24. The new Z lens. Damn, their lenses are so heavy, though. The 51.2, the 35, 1.2, those things are just massively, massively heavy. And, yeah, the aperture doesn't matter that much out there or really at all, other than controlling the amount of light coming in. Because as you saw in the one Earth set photo that's taken at 400 millimeters, the moon isn't as best focus as it's gonna be at 400 with that lens. And Earth is basically in focus, and you're at F8. So it's just. And that's 260,000 miles away. So that just tells you that it doesn't really matter what the aperture was gonna be.

[B]

I'm looking at the low light chart now for high ISO and what sensor is best for that. And surprisingly, the Sigma FP comes in at number one for 35 millimeter sensors. And the D5 is kind of right behind it. So the D5 is still up there in terms of like a low light champ. I think that's only, what, like a 20 megapixel sensor? Right?

[A]

I don't even remember what it was.

[B]

I think it's like 20.8 or something. And then the R3 is right behind that. But the M11 is up there. The Panasonic S1R, M11 monochrome, that's the right picture camera to take the Pentax K12.

[A]

Enough, enough, enough.

[B]

And the A9 Mark III real quick is up there, too.

[A]

Let me make something abundantly clear. The gear doesn't matter up there. All that matters are the photos that are coming back that they're getting. Photos that you and I. I mean,

[B]

the gear kind of matters.

[A]

Yes, gear matters, of course. But I'm saying they are. They are using what they could use at their disposal. And what they were able to capture are things that we wouldn't be able to capture because we aren't there. And we're never going to be astronauts to be flying around the moon. So would I do it if I could be guaranteed to live? Probably. If Not. I don't know.

[B]

I think this is also amazing PR for Nikon. I'm surprised they haven't talked about it more or put out a lot of press releases about it because I do feel like a lot of people are talking about Nikon right now.

[A]

Well, they're more talking about the Z9 or the D5 because they didn't really mention Nikon brand name at all when I listened to their talk.

[B]

It is very much the camera model name. Yeah.

[A]

They kept the brand names out of it and that. I don't know. And he's just. Guys, remember NASA, government organization, they do not have huge budgets. So using 10 year old cameras, you know, because one, they know they worked in the past so they expect them to work again. And then with the Z9 it's going to the moon. I remember a few years ago they put out the budget. Right. They bought all of these. Remember they were buying all these Nikon cameras.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Oh, the other thing we didn't talk about were the pro grade cards. Right. Weren't the pro grade cards supposed to be the cards they were using?

[B]

I'm not sure they put out the.

[A]

That it was a part of this mission. That was the only approved card was the prograde iridium cards where the approved cards of NASA to go on this mission.

[B]

It seemed like, by the way, they were getting a little confused about card organization up there. They kept referring to the cameras having a community card, which I assume was like a card that stayed in the camera. Both cameras have two card slots and then they each seem to have their own individual cards. Weird that they would swap between cameras and. Yeah, that just becomes very confusing.

[A]

I'm sure you're asking for trouble.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Not formatting to that specific camera.

[B]

Yeah. So I guess the community card was their, their safe card. And then again they had all those individual cards and they would swap them per camera.

[A]

I mean they could have set the cameras up with different banks and in the banks it would have the metadata for that person.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

To, to put in. Or they hit the memo and be like, I'm taking pictures from this picture on, you know.

[B]

Well, and the metadata had no author or any copyright information. So none of that was set up, which I'm a little surprised about.

[A]

It's free, Stephen. Free.

[B]

I guess America owns those images.

[A]

America.

[B]

I also question too how much degradation we're getting quality wise shooting through like those extra thick windows. You know, I mean that that piece of glass has to be so thick and it's probably not the cleanest clearest window.

[A]

No.

[B]

If I had to guess, yeah, the

[A]

glass is a thing. And that's why we heard them talking about the shroud. The Shroud of Turon. And it's literally just like something goes over the entire frame. It has a hole in it. You put your lens through it. And we're not talking about a Fleshlight, Steven.

[B]

You said it, not me.

[A]

You're not talking about. You thought it. You thought it.

[B]

It reminds me of like a dark bag, like your arm, where it goes in, like, that's kind of what they had wrapped around the window.

[A]

The word is it cinches.

[B]

Closed cinches.

[A]

And that cinches around the lens. I think that mirrorless cameras would be better to shoot with for checking exposure. Everything is right in front of your eyeball. That would be much more efficient for shooting. I would be curious to see how many pictures they did take and you know, if they were filling cards or not. Because I like. You're not going to fill a car. I mean. I mean, you could take a lot of pictures. And then they're beaming them back to. They're beaming them back, they're lasering them back. They could reformat the card.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm just wondering, you know, speaking of using an EVF first optical viewfinder, like, why they didn't use the Z9 more now that they had it up there. It was up there with them because

[A]

the mission called for the D5. And they stick with the mission.

[B]

But the Z9 is what the Artemis 3 is going to be using. And every future mission after that.

[A]

Well, I guess if it actually happens, we'll see what actually happens. But what we should do is maybe now that the Artemis is coming back, maybe make a trip down to Orlando again and take you or take Austin and go do a video with John Krause, the photographer guy who's working for the administrator Jared Isaacman, and get like, tours and do our thing. I've been there before. And so we should be able to get there and go set up meetings and really show you the behind the scenes of NASA.

[B]

We brought it up in the two videos, but you actually photographed the Commander on the Artemis 2. Reid Weissman, at the. Was it NASA Johnson Space Center?

[A]

No, this one was in. Yes, yes, I think so. The one in Texas at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab.

[B]

Yeah. That is the picture of the astronaut. We did a whole video on it where you kind of recapped how you had 90 seconds to photograph.

[A]

You want to talk about that was one of the deciding factors in getting away, by the way, that was one of the deciding reasons to get away from Nikon. I was using the Z7 and it could not focus on them walking towards. And you could see it in the video, it just couldn't do it. The colors extraordinary from that shoot, the focus. I was so lucky to get his eye coming out of the water. I was so lucky to be able to focus on him through the helmet. It was just a battle. It was one battle after another with the Nikon. I still haven't watched it, but it was one battle after another repeatedly. And that's why I had to get off that Nikon and stop using. But anyway, the moral of the story there is that was 2019. I am there photographing just random astronauts. I don't know that these guys are going to be going up, let's see, in seven years, seven years later that he ends up on the mission.

[B]

So much training. It really is so much training.

[A]

They see the thing with NASA is you rinse and you repeat every day you go through the. And I'm not saying they do the same thing every day, but they practice thousands upon thousands of hours on everything. So that when something occurs, you've done it so many times that you just

[B]

react second nature and you just do it. Muscle memory. How much do you think they get paid, by the way?

[A]

Anywhere to 100 to $150,000. ChatGPT said.

[B]

Oh, not bad.

[A]

About 100, 155,000 years for most astronauts. A very common typical salary is around 152,000 full range depending on experience. Roughly 104 to 160,000 for civilian astronauts, but not enough for them to buy five properties. Six. I mean six. I didn't tell you about that last one. Great.

[B]

Can't wait.

[A]

No, I'm just kidding. But no, they, they, they are not making as much as you think, but they do it for the love of the game and hopefully they get paid extra when they come back and can like monetize on, on this stuff with lunchboxes. I am still blown away by how big this was for photography. Just the constant discussions of cameras and settings was awesome and the images they captured are fantastic.

[B]

And I know that was pretty much the point of the mission. It's very similar to the early Apollo missions where they were basically taking pictures of the moon for future missions. But I just didn't expect, you know, that many people to be talking about photography with these missions.

[A]

Nope. Anything else you want to add, Steven?

[B]

No, just if you haven't watched the videos Check them out. We put two separate videos up about the NASA photos, one being the blue marble similar photo, and then the other one being the similar photo to the Earthrise 1968 image.

[A]

And that's about it. I.

[B]

Both videos that I thought were going to be burner videos and only took a couple hours to put together. And thankfully they're both doing well. The one obviously is doing incredibly well.

[A]

It's funny, Stephen and I were talking about this and I put Austin on the spot because Austin's like, we should make more content like that. I'm like, that's. I wish it was that easy. I wish we were doing it 17 years. The videos you think are gonna do great.

[B]

And we've tried it in the past. We've had videos pop, and we've literally copied the title, thumbnail content, everything around it, and it completely flopped the next time around.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Now I will say, because this is such a hot topic, obviously to the general public, the second video is still doing fairly well. Not obviously as well as the first one, but. Yeah, that. That makes sense. But, like, when it comes to making photography content, it's very hard to replicate. Like, lightning doesn't strike twice in the same spot. You know, it's. It's very hard to do it again. We'll.

[A]

We'll take it. We'll take it. Just. It's just a fluke. I didn't get too super excited. I stayed very grounded. Oh. I stayed very grounded because I knew that this isn't something that is replicable or repeatable at all. It just is what it is. And let's just keep doing us.

[B]

And of course, by the way, those are two videos that we didn't put any digital product plugs in for once.

[A]

Yeah, no plugs.

[B]

The videos that do half a million views in 24 hours.

[A]

Be like, yeah, buy our presets for editing space photos on your phone. $800 billion. Now, I don't think those.

[B]

They just didn't make sense.

[A]

They didn't make sense. So the thing is, you add new followers and then you hope to give enough value that over time, they go and purchase something in the future for sure. So that's where we're going to end it, guys. That's episode number raw Talk, episode 192. Thank you very much for listening, Jared polandfronosphoto. Com. See ya.

[B]

Bye.