 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Typical case here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16013.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> Typical case here:
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16013.html
they faked it at arizona desert!
kidding aside, why in 2012 we still need to look at B&W photographs from outer
space?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 14:28:19
Message: <502552c3$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2012 7:20 PM, nemesis wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> Typical case here:
>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16013.html
>
> they faked it at arizona desert!
>
> kidding aside, why in 2012 we still need to look at B&W photographs from outer
> space?
>
>
Bandwidth, old chap.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 10/08/2012 7:20 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >> Typical case here:
> >> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16013.html
> >
> > they faked it at arizona desert!
> >
> > kidding aside, why in 2012 we still need to look at B&W photographs from outer
> > space?
> >
> >
> Bandwidth, old chap.
how about less photographs and more color? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 15:17:11
Message: <50255e37$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2012 7:39 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>>
>>> kidding aside, why in 2012 we still need to look at B&W photographs from outer
>>> space?
>>>
>>>
>> Bandwidth, old chap.
>
> how about less photographs and more color? ;)
>
Don't ask me, ask NASA. :-p
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 15:37:22
Message: <502562f2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 10/08/2012 20:39, nemesis nous fit lire :
> how about less photographs and more color? ;)
>
Ever though about the light intensity on planet Mars ?
The B&W pictures might indeed use more width spectrum than a real colour
picture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 15:42:37
Message: <5025642d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:28:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> kidding aside, why in 2012 we still need to look at B&W photographs
>> from outer space?
>>
>>
> Bandwidth, old chap.
Oh, I don't think that's it. Curiosity started with 5 Mbps of bandwidth
and once they cranked it up, it's at 40 Mbps of bandwidth.
I have 3 Mbps of bandwidth (down) on my DSL line, and it handles colour
images fine. ;)
I think it's more to do with the complexity of the hardware. B&W imaging
hardware is perhaps less complex and less prone to failing. But that's
just a guess.
I suppose I could ask a friend of mine who works on satellite tech, or my
wife could ask a friend of hers at JPL who might know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 15:51:36
Message: <50256648@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:28:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> >> kidding aside, why in 2012 we still need to look at B&W photographs
> >> from outer space?
> >>
> >>
> > Bandwidth, old chap.
> Oh, I don't think that's it. Curiosity started with 5 Mbps of bandwidth
> and once they cranked it up, it's at 40 Mbps of bandwidth.
> I have 3 Mbps of bandwidth (down) on my DSL line, and it handles colour
> images fine. ;)
> I think it's more to do with the complexity of the hardware. B&W imaging
> hardware is perhaps less complex and less prone to failing. But that's
> just a guess.
> I suppose I could ask a friend of mine who works on satellite tech, or my
> wife could ask a friend of hers at JPL who might know.
You all talk like the rover has no color cameras. Naturally that's not so.
Why some cameras are color and some B&W, that's an interesting question.
I haven't researched, but I'm guessing that they serve different purposes.
For example the rover has several "safety cameras" which purpose is to
detect and avoid collisions against obstacles when the rover moves. These
seem to be B&W, and I suppose that's enough for that purpose (and are probably
more reliable because the technology is simpler and more robust).
Perhaps some of the regular cameras are also B&W for the same reason: Maybe
they are less likely to break or malfunction in other ways. Maybe they have
a higher contrast, maybe they can capture a larger range of light amplitudes,
I don't know.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 16:00:15
Message: <5025684f$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also, colour camera have a resolution of 1/2 in each dimension when
compared to a B&W: the colour is achieved by masking some detectors with
coloured filter.
Do you want a 2MPixel colours pictures, or a 8MPixel B&W ?
(now, the number of pixels is probably far greater on such expedition.
Yet 10MPixel or 40MPixel ?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Unrealistic use of ground fog in landscape views.
Date: 10 Aug 2012 16:08:20
Message: <50256a34$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2012 8:17 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
> Don't ask me, ask NASA. :-P
FYI http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19201742
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
