Re: Parkes hi-resTV tapes of Apollo 11 surface activity

From: Andy C (remoteneeded_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/25/04 

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:43:43 +0100

> ...Hell, if the loss of 50fps meant clearer pics, the loss is far more
> than acceptable. The problem is that I seriously doubt whoever has the
> tapes has the playback equipment any longer. Those decks were fucking
> huge, and while most people have never seen those 2" decks up close,
> the best shape & size comparison that comes to mind are those old
> plastic mold machines they had at the World's Fairs in the 60's, where
> you popped in 50 cents and you actually saw the damn thing injection
> mold you a dinosaur or whatever object the molds were set for. More
> people have seen these machines than 2" tape machines.
>
> ...Here's what needs to be done:
>
> 1) Whoever's going to run the conversion attempt needs to find out
> whether NASA has the tapes, since Parkes has claimed they don't have
> them.
>
> 2) Then, whoever has them needs to make sure they're not disposed of,
> and made available once whoever manufactured the original recorder
> unit is rounded up and talked into participating in the restoration.
> Their participation is going to be vital in this.
>
> 3) Then, in much the same way the Zapruder film was digitally
> restored, a 10fps digital version needs to be mastered frame-by-frame.
> Even at just 10fps, this is going to be a *LOT* of frames, and will
> take significantly longer than the Zapruder film, which was split 8MM
> and only about 400 frames max.
>
> 4) Then, before we even consider motion interpolation - read:
> contacting ILM regarding the digital methods used to make the AT-AT's
> look more real than the stop-motion allowed - a 10fps version is
> released to judge whether that effort is going to be necessary after
> all.
>
> ...I've known for years that the initial 320 line version was cleaner
> than anything we saw at home. My own experience with TV on the
> broadcaster's side has soured me with regards to viewing at home - the
> picture you get even over cable is crap compared to what we got
> directly off that big dish! On the other hand, cleaning up the A11
> footage as is already out there is a nightmare, having done so myself
> as related to this group on numerous occasions over the years.
>
> Which, of course, does *not* mean that I wouldn't give my left nut and
> Pat's right one for the honor to work on such a restoration
> project...:-)
>
> OM

A few points:

The 2" recordings were of the scan-converted pictures, not the slow-scan TV.
There are plenty of these machines still around, but that's not the problem,
(I regularly see a 2" tape machines up close!). The slow-scan TV was
recorded on 1/2" tape on a Mincom M22, and it's one of these machine you'd
need to find. Failing that, build one! The joy of digital techniques is that
you don't have to do things in real time - get the information off the tape
in any way you can, turn it into numbers, then number crunch away until
you've got the result you want.

Before you even start to look at motion interpolation, (and personally I
wouldn't bother), you'd need to work out the best way to clean up the
pictures - noise reduction, time-base correction, etc. None of this is that
difficult, and is something I have done in my job many times, it just takes
time. Normally time equally money, but this could easily be a labour of love
and I'm sure there are many experts in the field that would happily work on
it for the sheer love or it. I've seen many hours of 'cult' TV restored this
way...

I wouldn't call the number of frame a *LOT*, many yes, but it's not that
unmanageable. Quick sums: 427x320 pixels, (square) = 137kB per frame x 10
(fps) x 9000, (2.5 hours) = just over 12GB. Remember it's black and white,
so there's a third as much information to deal with compared to color, (or
'colour' as we stange British types like to say!)

But this is all for nothing if the tapes aren't still around.

Andy C