SpaceX does a good job, but it didn’t exist in 1969. My own take on this is that as a society we simply don’t care and are generally worse at our jobs.
It’s always assumed that things are constantly getting better, but I’m reminded at moments like this that over the course of nearly 60 years, we’ve not progressed as much as we’d like to think.
It’s clear that several people in charge of the youtube livestream have no idea about how to do that correctly. I think the difference is just effort. Viewership was tiny compared to Apollo 11, as was the hype leading up to it. It’s clear that NASA could provide a whole lot better footage if even some random youtuber (Everyday Astronaut) can beat them. So that aspect is, as you said, because as a society we don’t really care about the Artemis launch. SpaceX does put a fair amount of effort into their livestreams, and you can easily tell by watching them.
For the recorded footage, film often has a lot higher dynamic range than digital cameras and usually looks a whole lot better when recording a launch up close.
Far shots are limited by atmospheric distortion and physical limits from diffraction for a given aperture size. None of that can change.
IDK anything about the quality of the original live broadcast of Apollo 11, so i don’t have anything to compare in that regard
SpaceX does a good job, but it didn’t exist in 1969. My own take on this is that as a society we simply don’t care and are generally worse at our jobs.
It’s always assumed that things are constantly getting better, but I’m reminded at moments like this that over the course of nearly 60 years, we’ve not progressed as much as we’d like to think.
It’s clear that several people in charge of the youtube livestream have no idea about how to do that correctly. I think the difference is just effort. Viewership was tiny compared to Apollo 11, as was the hype leading up to it. It’s clear that NASA could provide a whole lot better footage if even some random youtuber (Everyday Astronaut) can beat them. So that aspect is, as you said, because as a society we don’t really care about the Artemis launch. SpaceX does put a fair amount of effort into their livestreams, and you can easily tell by watching them.
For the recorded footage, film often has a lot higher dynamic range than digital cameras and usually looks a whole lot better when recording a launch up close.
Far shots are limited by atmospheric distortion and physical limits from diffraction for a given aperture size. None of that can change.
IDK anything about the quality of the original live broadcast of Apollo 11, so i don’t have anything to compare in that regard