Remastered fim of Apollo 11

[buka001]

At first when I heard the reports on the news in South Africa, I thought that the famous missing tapes of the high-res SSTV footage had been found.

But as this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6716881.ece shows, its just the broadcast footage thats been remastered.

The announcement on radio in SA of this release, caused a flurry of stupid dj's saying its proof the moon landings were faked. I've emailed all of them and I am reporting them to the broadcasting complaints division for inaccurate and biased reporting. I am so sick of stupid paranoid conspiracy theorists. I don't need radio dj's making more of them!

 

[Mac53]

Well, i think it's not only Dj's some celeberties are joining into the CTs.

There where 2 celebrities that are well known for there role on some Reality Show.

Spencer and his wife. (Forgot names)

They where on the Alex jones show saying how they watched all his video's and are woken up etc etc.

 

[Travis]

Hedi Moronatog is who you mean I think.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Among the greatest of human achievements, and people who think they know what they're talking about deny it...

Too bad about the tapes. But the original for Star Wars is gone too...

 

[Oliver]

I saw a part of the remastered video at CNN/US and it still striked me as incredibly unimpressive.

ETA:

Restored moon landing video 3:09
Moon landing footage restored 6:09

 

[Monketi Ghost]

In what way is it unimpressive?

 

[skyhand]

For the true believers the tape would be unimpressive. They would just believe that the new film was not remastered. The video was before they altered it to make it look like it was coming from the moon.

The DJ's are just not too smart. They are often on the air because of the personality and not much more. There are many that I have listened to that would not pass a high school exit exam. There isn't much you can do to counter them. Many of their listeners are just like them. A good portion of the audience probably don't read a paper or watch the news programs. Unfortunately they are likely easily influenced by their authority figures the DJ''s.

 

[Oliver]

In what way is it unimpressive?

The footage still looks crappy in contrast to HDTV ... or some better footage from the 1920's and thirties, for that matter.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I can remember seeing broadcasts of people jumping off of buildings on the news in 192... wait, ou mean the first broadcast was 1936? And the rest were films?

Nevermind.

 

[Ducky]

The footage still looks crappy in contrast to HDTV ... or some better footage from the 1920's and thirties, for that matter.

You do understand the limitations of broadcasting from the moon in real time with analog equipment? ETA: With limited power? With limited bandwidth?

Of course you don't or you wouldn't be comparing completely different technology (ie recorded film/digital HDTV) to slow scan television broadcasting.

please read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-scan_television

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

 

[Oliver]

You do understand the limitations of broadcasting from the moon in real time with analog equipment? ETA: With limited power? With limited bandwidth?

Of course you don't or you wouldn't be comparing completely different technology (ie recorded film/digital HDTV) to slow scan television broadcasting.

please read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-scan_television

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

I know, but the remastered footage still is unimpressive in contrast to the pictures they took. A lousy, modified home movie camera might have been much more impressive than the live-broadcasts - given the exclusivity of the event.

 

[jaydeehess]

I saw a part of the remastered video at CNN/US and it still striked me as incredibly unimpressive.

ETA:

Restored moon landing video 3:09
Moon landing footage restored 6:09

let's not jump all over Oliver for this comment.

It is in fact true that one can create a good looking leather wallet from a sow's ear. You will, however, never be able to create a silk purse from that same raw material.

The fact is that of course the footage will still be grainy compared to what one can produce new, 40 years later. The comparison is hardly useful though.

Might as well be comparing the handling and braking performance of a 1969 Corvette to that of a 2010 Camaro.

 

[Alareth]

It's the content that really matters, not the quality.

That being said, this the best looking footage of the event I've ever seen in my lifetime.

 

[dudalb]

It's like saying actual World War 2 footage is unimpressive compared to what a studio effects department can do.
The fact that the footage is REAL trumps everything else IMHO.

 

[grmcdorman]

I know, but the remastered footage still is unimpressive in contrast to the pictures they took. A lousy, modified home movie camera might have been much more impressive than the live-broadcasts - given the exclusivity of the event.

They did take a "lousy, modified home movie camera": Apollo 11 16mm Onboard Film (also known as the DAC).

The video being discussed here was the live video downlink, which to NASA was much lower priority than pretty much everything else. A11, in particular, was still very much a "test flight".

 

[AbelovPes]

As someone who was watching many moon landing movies I think the remastered result is just amazing. So everybody has different view...
I am not sure what you expected... a Tom Hanks IMAX?