It’s not about the number of pixels but how you use them.
And what was your reaction? (Or your parents’ or your grandparents’ reaction?) Was it “Those pictures are really fuzzy. I can’t watch them”? Or was it “Black and white? I’m turning over to watch a film”, or was it even “Those NASA guys could have graded that a bit better!”?
From today’s perspective, yes, those pictures were terrible, but you probably shouldn’t apply today’s standards to what is, effectively, pure history. What if we had video of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs? Would we refuse to watch it unless it was in HDR 4K? No, of course not. Given that it would probably be the most important historical artifact in the history of anything, we’d probably be more than OK with it if it moved at one frame per second and looked like it was shot through ten feet of pondwater.
The moon pictures were sent back to Earth from a mission with less computing power than a gerbil and were, of course, analogue in every way. No wonder they lacked detail and were smeary. But in their own way, they were truly awesome.
Today, if Armstrong and Aldrin had taken the cheapest smartphone to the moon, they could have got pictures immeasurably better than the ones they took in 1969 (remember I’m talking about video here – not stills, which were very adequately catered for by the Hasselblad that NASA supplied to the astronauts). And if they’d taken a good camera – something like a Sony FS7, for example, then we’d have seen the most extraordinary video, ever.
RedShark News | Read the Full Article