It is not bad, but it is not that much better than motion vector being cut in 5 parts to produce fluid image. They just take 2 consecutive (original) motion vectors and turn them into spline before cutting. Image is not really 4K. More like 960x640 as no IQ is lost between 1080p and 720p, but there is some loss of IQ going 480p. It is nice for given resolution nonetheless.

It's pretty funny that a computer game these days could produce better moon footage, rendered real time, than authentic recordings from the heydays of the space race.

Game looks boring, no explosions, no aliens, boring dialog. Not sure about lighting, not enough lens flare, also ground textures looked a bit flat and I thought the shiny reflective thing at the front was a bit ott.

For all those commenting about how bad the footage is... I'm sure your handy-cams back in the 60s were much better. ... oh wait.

Before the the proof reader police start with their smarter than thou nonsense, no Apollo 16 did not go to Mars. Yeah it's an error get over it. Moving on....What I find amazing is no one comments on how we actually, yes we did there is equipment on the moon that is still being used to measure the moon pulling away from the earth, went to the moon 50 something years ago! They should have made a split screen side by side with the original footage so you could appreciate the upscaling.

"Apollo 16 Mars Mission Footage Upscaled To 4k 60 FPS is pretty amazing" Well before my time, but, when did Apollo 16 go to Mars? Right after it returned from the Moon?

NewTRUMP Order:

Before the the proof reader police start with their smarter than thou nonsense, no Apollo 16 did not go to Mars. Yeah it's an error get over it.

Fair enough.

Celcius:

"Apollo 16 Mars Mission Footage

Hilbert must have used an iPhone for typing that title. Apple is known for hilarious auto-"corrects" 🙄 https://www.autocorrectfail.org/popular/

Aah, my lovely Monday morning jitters 🙂

Cool stuff. Is there a limit to the peak resolution you can extract from old school physical film? I thought I read that actual film strips are the purest medium since they capture the image as we would see it with nothing missing, and modern xK cameras are leaving out bits of info by default. I guess that implies that as long as the old film hasn't degraded, there is no limit pixel-wise to how high you can remaster it to. Is that correct, or am I way off?

No limit other than "grain" size (which is fairly small even for old film), but it's easy to reach a point where extra resolution doesn't provide any more benefit. Stuff just gets blurrier and blurrier, as the lens that was used for filming didn't have sufficient optical clarity to capture more detail (ANY refractive material introduces some distortion, glass, plastic, air, doesn't matter). That is the case for modern lens and cameras as well, and a reason why denser sensors don't provide any quality benefits once a certain level is reached. Above that, many old movies are simply out of focus, since the lens was 100% human operated and they had no feedback of any kind if the image is properly focused or not. It was all an approximation.