Hello /sci/, fellower 4channer from /his/ and /co/. I am currently

> not too academic
go away

>>8814637
Cosmos (the original). The Ascent of Man is fantastic if you like biology/anthropology.

>>8814669
Okay then, give me academic ones as well.

>>8814670
>The Ascent of Man
Is that the 1970's one?

>>8814671
academics dont watch docs they read books.

>>8814674
Yeah, Bronowski is such an articulate man. Even more impressive considering how much was ad lib'd.

>>8814637
I don't think there is such a think as an "academic" documentary,
>they don't go into specific
>No maths involved, no formulas nothing to actually explain it
>just pretty pictures for normies that want to get high and say "yo that was deep, wow the universe is like so interesting"
So just about any documentary would do

>>8814678
Well still, some are good and some are bad.

>>8814637
Into the Universe - The story of everything
nice series with Stephen Hawking, high production value. you can find it on youtube though not in HD.

>>8814669
you probably don't even have a degree in science, you make-believe elitist.

Bumping again, all mentioned docs are being downloaded. Need more.

>>8814637
Through the Wormhole gives an overview of a wide variety of topics you can research further if you're interested

>>8814637
The original cosmos with carl sagan is great; if you're really into CGI Space Stuff then the new cosmos isn't half bad either, even if the material and host aren't up to the standards of the first one.

The Universe from the history channel is pretty good from what I recall seeing when it was actively airing, focused mostly on the science and history of discovery with some sweet CGI

>>8814743
PBS spacetime on youtube. Short and informative, its not heavy on math or details necessarily but it doesn't dumb things down too much either.

>>8814678
Underrated post.
This guys is right no documentary ever goes into specifics.