On 5/22/05, Jim Tinsley <jtinsley@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:04:51PM -0400, Robert Cicconetti wrote:
On 5/22/05, Jim Tinsley <jtinsley@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 08:25:24PM +0200, Branko Collin wrote:
But all of that is not as good as getting a more accurate capture of the original. To me, converting those video files is like automated conversion of text to html.. useful to some, but referring back to the original text delivers a much better final product.
For 1994, that is very good digital video footage. For 2005.. well, most camera phones do better.
For 11 years, anybody could have come to us with improvements to it, and they still can. Such is the nature of PG; things get built on, improved, re-formatted, whatever. 16MB was quite a chunk of real-estate to devote to this back in 1994. 16MB is not so scary now! If you, or someone, can get better originals, then you should by all means let us know.
I think the collection represented by that DVD is likely the best transfer of the original 16mm and television coverage that is widely available.. the question is how much is clearable under Rule 8. And that is a rather large can of worms.. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009XYYF/ is the particular work I am referring to. If it is clearable, then at some point I can purchase a copy, rip the scene.. wait, now we get into DMCA territory.. you can why I am a little hesitant here. The ideal solution, of course, would be to get the footage straight from NASA. Anyone have any contacts there? ;) R C (Whoops.. didn't check the To: box the first time..)