Well first thing I notice about that particular footage is it has been cleaned up in digitization, maybe even upscaled. Note the edits within the first minute or so - film edits don't look like that. It's not just a straight negative scan to screen.

Next, the first edit is strategic - it cuts from the astronaut moving about beside the rover to them sitting inside it. Nowhere in any of the apollo landings footage do we see them climbing onto the rover. There is always an edit. This is because they could not climb onto the rover without the help of at least 2 people. This was the case on earth. The usual defense of this is that the gravity was less strong there, but this doesn't cut it IMO, they were in bulky, pressurized suits that greatly limited maneuverability. That was the reason they could not climb onto and sit into the rover. Note how many times they fall over while out and about. They had a lot of trouble properly maneuvering themselves. Of course, the wires helping them back up when they fell over is another story beyond this clip.

Next, the edit I mentioned before also serves another purpose: cutting between live, "real size" footage of men in suits walking about the rover - to possibly scale model, stop motion animated footage. It's the exact same scale model effects employed by Hollywood to this day. It is very effective, and given an enormous budjet, beyond what any Hollywood film has ever had, it stands to reason it would be even better than most example, possibly the best that's ever been produced.

A quite convincing case is made for the driving around footage being scale model (radio controlled scale model rover, scale model dummys,; both to a scale of about 1/8, or 1/6, so not toy doll small) in various other footage. Since this one has been cleaned up, it is not as obvious. Their movement is smooth, not jittery like the originals. When I say "upscaled", this footage has had frames added that don't exist on the actual footage, to make it smoother. That's my guess anyway. The real footage is generally much more jittery.

When picking footage to examine you have to be careful - NASA have been working on it constantly, well into the digital age. They infamously clean up photos as anomalies get pointed out, for example. Only certain reproductions of the moving footage is deemed completely unedited, and it is often not the stuff you encounter on YouTube. A NASA contracted company called "StarCraft Films" sells the official, complete DVDs of all the footage of each mission and these are completely free (so it goes) from editing beyond scanning of the negatives. The original scans. Though that is still not the whole story.

Well first thing I notice about that particular footage is it has been cleaned up in digitization, maybe even upscaled. Note the edits within the first minute or so - film edits don't look like that. It's not just a straight negative scan to screen.

Next, the first edit is strategic - it cuts from the astronaut moving about beside the rover to them sitting inside it. Nowhere in any of the apollo landings footage do we see them climbing onto the rover. There is always an edit. This is because they could not climb onto the rover with the help of at least 2 people. This was the case on earth. The usual defense of this is that the gravity was less strong there, but this doesn't cut it IMO, they were in bulky, pressurized suits that greatly limited maneuverability. That was the reason they could not climb onto and sit into the rover. Note how many times they fall over while out and about. They had a lot of trouble properly maneuvering themselves. Of course, the wires helping them back up when they fell over is another story beyond this clip.

Next, the edit I mentioned before also serves another purpose: cutting between live, "real size" footage of men in suits walking about the rover - to possibly scale model, stop motion animated footage. It's the exact same scale model effects employed by Hollywood to this day. It is very effective, and given an enormous budjet, beyond what any Hollywood film has ever had, it stands to reason it would be even better than most example, possibly the best that's ever been produced.

A quite convincing case is made for the driving around footage being scale model (radio controlled scale model rover, scale model dummys,; both to a scale of about 1/8, or 1/6, so not toy doll small) in various other footage. Since this one has been cleaned up, it is not as obvious. Their movement is smooth, not jittery like the originals. When I say "upscaled", this footage has had frames added that don't exist on the actual footage, to make it smoother. That's my guess anyway. The real footage is generally much more jittery.

When picking footage to examine you have to be careful - NASA have been working on it constantly, well into the digital age. They infamously clean up photos as anomalies get pointed out, for example. Only certain reproductions of the moving footage is deemed completely unedited, and it is often not the stuff you encounter on YouTube. A NASA contracted company called "StarCraft Films" sells the official, complete DVDs of all the footage of each mission and these are completely free (so it goes) from editing beyond scanning of the negatives. The original scans. Though that is still not the whole story.

Well first thing I notice about that particular footage is it has been cleaned up in digitization, maybe even upscaled. Note the edits within the first minute or so - film edits don't look like that. It's not just a straight negative scan to screen.

Next, the first edit is strategic - it cuts from the astronaut moving about beside the rover to them sitting inside it. Nowhere in any of the apollo landings footage do we see them climbing onto the rover. There is always an edit. This is because they could not climb onto the rover with the help of at least 2 people. This was the case on earth. The usual defense of this is that the gravity was less strong there, but this doesn't cut it IMO, they were in bulky, pressurized suits that greatly limited maneuverability. That was the reason they could climb onto and sit into the rover. Note how many times they fall over while out and about. They had a lot of trouble properly maneuvering themselves. Of course, the wires helping them back up when they fell over is another story beyond this clip.

Next, the edit I mentioned before also serves another purpose: cutting between live, "real size" footage of men in suits walking about the rover - to possibly scale model, stop motion animated footage. It's the exact same scale model effects employed by Hollywood to this day. It is very effective, and given an enormous budjet, beyond what any Hollywood film has ever had, it stands to reason it would be even better than most example, possibly the best that's ever been produced.

A quite convincing case is made for the driving around footage being scale model (radio controlled scale model rover, scale model dummys,; both to a scale of about 1/8, or 1/6, so not toy doll small) in various other footage. Since this one has been cleaned up, it is not as obvious. Their movement is smooth, not jittery like the originals. When I say "upscaled", this footage has had frames added that don't exist on the actual footage, to make it smoother. That's my guess anyway. The real footage is generally much more jittery.

When picking footage to examine you have to be careful - NASA have been working on it constantly, well into the digital age. They infamously clean up photos as anomalies get pointed out, for example. Only certain reproductions of the moving footage is deemed completely unedited, and it is often not the stuff you encounter on YouTube. A NASA contracted company called "StarCraft Films" sells the official, complete DVDs of all the footage of each mission and these are completely free (so it goes) from editing beyond scanning of the negatives. The original scans. Though that is still not the whole story.