The IIIE did indeed have a Centaur stage with a "thermos" full of liquid hydrogen and another with liquid oxygen, but that's not what we see in this clip -- the pillars of fire and smoke come from a pair of solid-fuel boosters that burn for about two minutes, followed by about six more minutes of flight powered by two more stages burning non-cryogenic liquid propellants (hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide) before the Centaur was ignited.
About 15 years earlier, I had done some work at the VAB and walked around the Saturn IV that was laying on its side there, just as James Burke had a few years earlier. It wasn't there when I worked the above referenced mission. I'm not sure when they moved it, or where it ended up (but it's not in the "rocket garden" at the Visitor Center).
If you mean just the Saturn IV (no B), that was the second stage of some early Saturn rocket. I don't know much about those or if one was ever on display.
Centaur has balloon tanks which is just very thin metal. It can't even stand on its own without pressure. But no thermos.
That said, on the Titan IIIE at launch, there was an second outer surface around the Centaur -- the payload fairing -- which was discarded only after atmospheric pressure was low enough that it was no longer needed to protect the payload and the Centaur upper stage. (It wasn't a true thermos as the space in between wasn't sealed and was at ambient pressure at launch).
See the cutaway views on pages 16 and 17 (pdf pages 19-20) of https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/TC-6-Voyager-Fl...
So knowing, the engines starts 3 seconds before liftoff, he was able to time the speech.
I saw this clip dozen of times, and only after keeping attention I realized this.
So with the cut technique, it seems like seamless feature, and that's the magic of the TV. Nevertheless amazing delivery.
Perhaps it's just me, but modern documentaries are rather dumbed down?
As a side note: Quite ironic that he ends up pointing to a rocket propelled mostly by solid fuels.
My fear is that this is also being reshaped with ai, mostly for good now but I feel like the personal touch and passion of these creators is being diluted with the advent of generated content.
Maybe we are in a valley of the uncanny valley and the ai tools will become so good that they can successfully translate someone’s passionate vision faithfully, then it could be another renaissance.
It's not just you. Most modern TV documentaries, especially series, are dumbed down and sped up. Fast cuts, lots of woo, not too much to challenge your brain, don't want it to get strained.
Gone are the days where someone conveyed the information calmly while not driving a car somewhere irrelevant. No more lingering shots allowing you to process what you just saw and heard.
I don't know the show, but when I first watched this clip (under the title of "greatest shot on television") I totally bought in to the hype and thought it really was amazing. You start out just walking alongside him, and only slowly realize where you are and what is about to happen, and everything is perfectly timed and composed: he ends his walk, reaches the conclusion of his explanation, and you realize what is going on, all at the exact time the launch begins. Brilliant!
Except that this is not "a shot" at all. I just hadn't noticed on my first watch that there's a very obvious cut just at the end of the "walk". It's a different angle from a different location at a different time of day, and he just has one sentence to say before he looks back at the blast off.
It would be no different from any news reporter on location at the time, reading a prepared message ahead of the launch, timed to end before the launch itself with no need for extensive rehearsals, the launch timing is widely broadcast, you time yourself accordingly with your talking speed, by adding pauses, etc. And on top of everything they probably had to do it live too.
I have no issue with James Burke or his show. And this scene is really beautifully done. But it's not the greatest shot in television. It's not even one shot!
(edited: typos)
> Watch it enough times yourself, and you’ll notice that it also pulls off some minor sleight of hand by having Burke walk from a non-time-sensitive shot into another with the already-framed rocket ready for liftoff. But that hardly lessens the feeling of achievement when the launch comes off.
Personally, I saw it exactly that way when I first saw it - the cut is super obvious because the background is totally different after. If the commentary before had been with the same background then it could well have had the illusion of being continuous.
Regardless: Like the article author, I still think it's great television.
However, I don't think people were praising this shot for it's audio editing. I wouldn't be surprised if Burke re-recorded it and they dubbed it over the video. I think they're saying this is an amazing shot because the timing seems to be pretty good... He points at the rocket and about a quarter or half of a second later it ignites. This comes at the end of a 10-ish second sequence. Pretty good timing. Unlike other shots in popular media up to this time it would have been difficult to try to do a second time (though I guess they could have tried again at the Voyager 1 launch a couple weeks later.)
The Conversation's treatment (there are many others): "The animal sounds in most nature documentaries are made by humans – here’s how they do it and why it matters" (2024) <https://theconversation.com/the-animal-sounds-in-most-nature...>.
Burke's time-shifting is a relatively minor sin, though I'd have appreciated if they'd allowed the original sonic lag to be experienced.
The sounds in combat footage of WW2 are all dubbed in, as the cameras did not record sound.
They say it's a great shot because Burke hits his mark at the beginning of the shot, then he progresses through the shot, hits his final mark and points within half a second of ignition. All while delivering dialog. (Props to the camera operator who tracked Burke and pulled focus at the appropriate time.)
And then I think there's the thematic element of the subject matter. What you don't get by watching the final shot in that episode was the emotional impact of the Voyager launches. The space program was, at the time, continuing on from the high of the moon landings. The Pioneer probes had returned black and white images from Jupiter and Saturn but the Voyagers were going to return more colour images. They were a RETURN to space, demonstrating that the pioneer mission wasn't a fluke and that, as a people, we were capable of doing great things.
And now, as a people, we bitch in online forums about voice-overs.
One does not, as you suggest, need to deduct any points for editing the sound of an impressive bit of writing, timing, presenting and camera work.
https://youtu.be/qybUFnY7Y8w?si=DBSqRMciDY41QPzD
I thought they really did it all in one cut but there are at least two. Still a great music video and song.
* in a zero-G plane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGJA9i18Co
* one-take (?) on electric unicycles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ZB_rGFyeU
* 4.2s real-time scene with the footage slowed down to 4 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvW61K2s0tA
* Chevrolet-sponsored video where they use a moving car as an instrument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MejbOFk7H6c
Not a lot of people know that after his famous lines as he descended the ladder, Armstrong quietly muttered "and good luck Mr. Lansky". The few people who have heard the audio asked him about over the years, and he was never willing to explain ... until one day. "Well, you see" said Armstrong at a NASA publicity event, "when I was a kid growing up one of my neighbors were Mr & Mrs Lansky. I was playing on the street one day, maybe 8 or 9 years old, it was a hot summer's day and everyone had their windows open. Mr & Mrs Lansky were having some sort of argument inside their house - I couldn't hear much of what they were saying. But then Mrs Lansky must have moved closer to the window, because I heard her very clearly say "Oral sex? You'll get oral sex from me the day that kid next door walks on the moon!"".
Just a reminder, we didn't have AI editing tools at the time. Traditional editing tools of the time would probably be obvious. Maybe you're responding to the focus change where the camera operator adjusts the focal plane from Burke to the rocket in the distance.
That focus change makes me certain the shot wasn't reverse projection as the screen would have to be exceedingly large (too large to keep sufficiently flat.)
I remember seeing film (yes, film!) on the news of the Voyager 2 launch and I remember seeing this episode of Connexions on PBS shortly after.
I'm honestly flummoxed you think there's a cut in the final shot of that sequence. I just don't see it. Maybe it's a generational thing
Personally I don’t think that takes anything away
The main thing is that he has say basically one sentence right in a single take, but he is a seasoned television announcer, so that in itself is not too surprising.
The much longer segment, including walking with a moving camera at exactly the right timing, would have been much harder to get in a single take. (Not to mention that that Saturn V lying on its side is probably not even in the same location.)
But I think it's about 120 degrees to the left from where they shot the shot of Burke walking. They absolutely had to set up a different shot to get Burke and the Titan III in the same shot.
As an aside... That Saturn V is no longer at that location. Several years ago they moved it a mile to the north and built a building around it to create the Apollo / Saturn V center. Or at least I think it's the same artefact.
[1] Which would certainly have some scenes competing for actual best shot. Calling it TV feels a bit misleading.
https://archive.org/details/bbc-connections-1978/Connections...
It still holds up for the most part, though of course some of the takes, being almost 50 years old, may seem a bit quaint. It's certainly worth watching the first series at least start to finish. Burke is an interesting guy.
I also want to speak up for the BBC history documentary team that worked with Michael Wood: _In Search of the Trojan War_, _In Search of the Dark Ages_, _The Story of England_, _The Story of India_ they were also a staple of American PBS and informed my understanding of the world.
1: My go to example for this is imagine you walk into the Pantheon in 1000 AD: no one on your entire continent has known how to build a dome like that in 500 years, and won't again for another 500 years. The fundamental way you understand the world has to be completely different from the "newer is better" baseline that we have understood the world by for the past 150 years.
And for Philomena Cunk's various projects…
Good grief, no. The basic thesis of Connections 1 was that humanity has become fatally dependent on technology (the "technology trap" he speaks of), that that dependence continues getting deeper and deeper, and it's hard to predict what technologies will emerge or where technology will take us, possibly utopia but just as likely a living hell, and finally that we don't even have the option to stop digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the technology trap because technological advancement can't be stopped because its emergence is unpredictable. Re-watch just the first and last episodes and they will terrify you.
Connections 2 and 3 were indeed scattershot because people liked Burke's charming mannerisms and didn't want to think about the ever more complex and ever more fragile panoply of technologies that individuals, even the technologists themselves, can neither understand nor control that is all that stands between humanity and its extinction.
Many of these older docu’s wanted you to stop and think.
A year or two before I was born, James Burke wandered between mainframes and reel-to-reel tape machines, speaking with extraordinary prescience about data, communications, decision-making systems, and power:
"This is the future. Because if you tell a computer everything you know about something, it will juggle the mix, and come up with a prediction. Do this, and you'll get that. And if you have information and a computer, you too can look into the future. And that is power. Commercial power, political power, power to change things."
I'm going to watch that scene again, because it's even more important 20 years further along: smart phones, "big data", large language models, Palantir...
This clip is Season 1 Episode 8 "Eat Drink and Be Merry" and the shot starts at 48:17:
https://archive.org/download/bbc-connections-1978/Connection...
Also note that there is a book: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Connections/James-Bur...
https://archive.org/details/connections0000burk/page/n7/mode...
I know I sound like a pedant but so many of these old TV recordings are uploaded this way on youtube. I was so annoyed by this infact that a few years ago I made a dumb extension that squeezes the video element back to 4:3 [1]. I'm not sure if this still works though.
[1] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/doddimnledmldclhlbf...
And here's the clip with aspect ratio corrected: https://www.stretch.site/?videoUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube...
As an uploader you should never add black bars (if they are in the source, crop them out before uploading) and of course never distort the video. This ensures the best playback experience for all devices.
In an ideal world yes. In practice, the YouTube layout looks weird on aspect ratios that aren't 4:3 or 16:9. If you upload any vertical video it gets categorized as a short, so that's out of the window - and even for things like 21:9 you get a teeny tiny player on desktop since it just fits the width.
Quick googling suggested that square video under 3 minutes will be automatically classed as "shorts", which much of HN hates and may never have seen.
Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel" has every section of the movie shot in the time appropriate aspect ratio.
They won't ever squash or stretch video though, so this means the original uploader stretched the 4:3 content to 16:9 at some point before upload
It cares about overall pixel size, and for example standard 720x576 standard def 4:3 video will be brutally compressed compared to the exact same video upscaled using any non-AI upscaler (even nearest-neighbour) to 1440x1080.
I dug into this a bit a while ago, and could probably post my finding here if anyone was interested.
I think there's still a lot of room for optimism, despite all of the pessimism in the media, and I'm not even talking about AI. There are a ton of other things which have benefitted enormously from ubiquitous, efficient, and powerful computing that hardly get talked about anymore, we've come to take it all for granted.
He didn’t shy away from talking about technology for good or ill, for the ways it liberates us but can also trap us, for the ways it makes new sources of energy possible, and new weapons.
Apparently something called "magnetic viewing film" can allow you to see the bits on the magnetic stripes of credit cards.
I had never heard about this before.
Link to video time: https://archive.org/details/bbc-connections-1978/Connections...
So he nailed a 13 second countdown. Who cares? Newscasters do this at every commercial break. Sports announcers do this without a script and they still nail the cut to commercial almost every time. Yes, there's a talent to timing your speech to a countdown in your ear, but it's a talent that people do thousands of times a day around the world on far less preparation than Burke had here.
The fact that this article calls a simple cut a "sleight of hand" just terrifies me. Does the public really not know what editing is?
I think most viewers would be unaware of the cut unless it was pointed out. Hence this sequence being called a "shot".
https://www.space.com/connections-with-james-burke-docuserie...
It begins at South Tower of the World Trade Center, and as Burke enters an express elevator (Car 6 or 7 if you must know) he says in effect, "Do I worry about ascending to the top in a steel box? Of course I don't! We take going up in the world like that for granted." When an elevator later goes dark he says. "We expect this to happen sometimes so what do we do? We strike a light and look around in the dark for an emergency button to push and if we find one, we press it." In this discussion of single takes, note what the temperature of the butane lighter must have been by the time he finishes his speech. Ouch!
Also interesting to note in the realm of happenstance: the airliner portrayed in trouble over darkened New York was flight 911.
That is an awesome set of coincidences.
... or perhaps the series influenced OBL ...
Growing up in Argentina, back in the day these were all dubbed. The version I watched on tv had a voice and personality of its own - Latin American "neutral" Spanish - and for the life of me I could never find that same version, only the Spain-dubbed one.
"Never have so many people understood so little about so much."
Even more true today.
The episode was funny (although cringey too) for the things that happened in it.
But what was quite clever I thought was that the episode was itself done (at least seemingly) in one-shot.
It’s to heighten the sense of anxiety and tension for the viewer in order to amplify the comedy.
Great show!
Sadly, it is not produced anymore. The producers chase a style and person that no longer exist, so they get their panties in a twist and make TikTok style and "true crime" style interviews is all I see from newer documentaries sadly. Women love "true crime" so 50% of new docus are just true crime drama slop.
I used to watch all or most of our state TV ones but they are no longer as good (They do some of their own buy buy in most from BBC, Showtime and PBS.)
I have been watching World at War and The World at War and such. Should watch Civilization and How should we then live?
Made today it would be a woman or MtF person screeching about it and a disclaimer in the beginning.
Do yourself a favor, and search for the episodes.
