Why is the Hindenburg Disaster so famous? Is it just the dramatic video and images or is there some importance above and beyond other early air disasters?

I don't know of any academic work which examines this particular question, so I think that any answer has to be a mixture of known facts about the other airship failures, and less substantiated reasoning about how they were perceived.

Airships were never common in the same way that aeroplanes were even back then, and of those that were built, almost all were military. They were always vulnerable to multiple failures, most of which could be catastrophic. The use of hydrogen was not the most serious problem, and was one of the easier risks to mitigate. Unless there is interest, I won't go in to the problems in much detail, but some of the most important were:

Structural failure, due to collision with the ground (one of several possible reasons for the Hindenburg failure), turbulence (e.g. from hills); or stress from over-vigourous control movements.
Pressure height - exceed this and you have to vent so much gas that you can't recover without hitting the ground. This could be as low as 3000'
Lack of sufficient engine power, giving low air speed.
Inability to dock or land in bad weather.

Hydrogen fires were not as important as you might think - in fact in WW I fighter pilots found it quite difficult to set Zeppelin bombers on fire. The Dixmude is the only example of a large airship I can think of which burned from natural causes (probable lightning strike). The Roma caught fire after touching high voltage lines.

So if you put these factors together:

Most of the previous crashes had involved military personnel (WW I Zeppelins, R-38, Dixmude, Akron, Macon, Shenandoah etc.), and [conjecture] such casualties would not be seen in the same light as civilian casualties. Even the civilian R-101 was not carrying paying passenger, but rather was being used to ferry the Air Minister to India, together with other govt officials and the design staff.
Almost all of the earlier airships had been substantially smaller, with correspondingly fewer crew/passengers.
Because of the inability to dock or land in bad weather, a standard response was to head out to sea where at least the turbulence would be reduced. Sometimes this worked, but if the airship did fail, it would be without the audience that the Hindeburg had. No "The humanity!" wireless broadcast, no Speed Graphic shuttling six shots through its sheet film changer before the ship hit the water. The major exception was the R-101, which fell inland over France after encountering turbulence at Beavais Ridge, but as it fell at 02:00 I don't think that there were any witnesses on the ground - certainly no wireless or cameras.

So in summary, I believe that the importance of the Hindenburg as opposed to the larger R-38, R-101 and Dixmude crashes, or the many smaller crashes, was that it combined high visibility, live wireless transmissions, civilian passengers on what was supposed to be a routine flight, and the psychological impression of fire.

Unlike many first impressions from an alarming event, anyone investigating further would only find that airships were if anything much more dangerous than one might think from one isolated incident.