[bk1000]

“The “good footage” from the 1960’s was FILM, which had to be physically brought back from the moon.”

True, they were using a Hassleblad film camera for stills, but the smearing you see from moving bright subjects is video. The camera image sensor tubes of that era would get overloaded with bright lights and smear the light leaving ‘trails’. That doesn’t happen with film. The real trick is how they transmitted video from the moon in real time back then. I was such a believer, but have recently become a skeptic.

[Campion]

They did not only take stills with the Hasselblad, they also had movie cameras. The "view out the window" of the LEM footage is movie film; it wasn't live TV. You didn't see it until a week or two after the landing. What you saw "live" during the landing was just models and animation.

The real trick is how they transmitted video from the moon in real time back then.

Not really a "trick", just analog video the same way they transmitted from orbit. Probably FM modulation for the video signal. Of course it was over microwave frequencies, so highly directional.

Apollo 11 used a "slow-scan TV" system, popular with ham radio operators back then, which is one reason the Apollo 11 video is not very good. The later missions I believe used a resolution and framerate comparable to broadcast TV.

[markman46]

WOW!!! how did nasa do real time transmission of video, same way they had real time audio transmission??? the LM had a dish on the ascent stage too, plus the astro’s put up a dish on the moon.