I have never understood why the Apollo debunkers are prepared to use the fact that such grainy poor footage of Armstrong setting foot on the moon is evidence that it was faked. I suppose it's for the same reasons as they suppose that traversing the Van Allen belts should have been fatal, there should have been a blast crater under the LEM, there should be stars visible in the footage, etc etc. Subsequent mission footage (with the exclusion of 12, where Al Bean inadvertently attempted to film sunspots), was superb, and even shots from the LEM cabin window of Armstrong are of very good quality - (were the latter recorded then as opposed to being beamed back at the time?)