Curiosity Has Landed!!

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
This will probably sound noobish when it comes to cameras, but you will have to excuse my ignorance. I know its not all about Megapixels, but the main camera is 8 mega pixels while you can buy a 30 mega pixel camera from any consumer store. Plus gigapixel cameras have also been made now. Fair enough the gigapixel cameras are probably just to big to justify it, but surely they could manage more than 8?? Or is it just about photo size, it would take to long to send back to earth if the resolution was so high?

That is basically it -- larger files take longer to transmit, a 30Mpx camera file is roughly around 50-60mb each, when with my 16mpx canon dslr i get amazingly detailed images to where i can spot things off in the distance clearly for 20-30mbs

-- its more about the sensor size and lens than the megapixel count. Think about it this way -- people rave about 1080p video quality and how crisp and clear it is --- that's the equivalent of less than 2 megapixels of resolution.

8Mpx with the right sensor and lens will be more than enough to get disgustingly good detail during this mission, and we won't have to wait forever to see the pictures.

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican

The early photos are from the low resolution 2 megapixel hazard cams. These are only for the safety of the rover itself and were not intended for anything other than making sure the rover didn't land on anything, or drive into something compromising. The 8 megapixel COLOR photos will be available soon.

Am I the only one with problems with a 2mp "lo-res" hazard cam?

Total Cost: $2.5 billion, including $1.8 billlion for spacecraft development and science investigations and additional amounts for launch and operations.

2.5 billion for a space mission and all they put in is a 2mp B/W hazard cam?

To find out, the rover will carry the biggest, most advanced suite of instruments for scientific studies ever sent to the martian surface.

Seriously?

Did they pick a B/W model because it was cheap? Or, is it so they can have the opportunity to photoshop the colors? Simple questions demand answers. To me, 2mp B/W cameras are on the "obsolete" end of the scale.

And then, we are promised 8mp COLOR photos? C'mon folks, I have an 8mp camera on my year old smartphone. To me, the equipment they put on rover is not the "most advanced". For 2.5 billion I would think they would have a top of the line imaging system, all around. With a unique opportunity to capture some of the most spectacular pics of the martian landscape, it seems to me they skipped on features.

reply to post by stevenreanimator


So its more about making a good compromise.

Thinking about it, how much detail do you need when your just photographing rocks, rocks more rocks and sand....

.......... Or so we think anyway

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican

 

black and white !!!???

We had colored photos in 1908.....!!!

Think about that.......

And today in 2012 we have .....black and white photos...

We spend billions and trillions on this tech......and not one person can come up with a colored photo.

Why dont you go back into that hole you must live in were you DONT get ANY INFORMATION on whats going to happen!!!

reply to post by Druid42

Well...

Probably has something to do with transmission time and bandwidth and reception. They're fully equipped to produce better pictures, but as stated, that has stricter requirements.

If it were me, I'd want some cheap camaras w/ low demands on it too. Redundancy.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican

 

black and white !!!???

We had colored photos in 1908.....!!!

Think about that.......

And today in 2012 we have .....black and white photos...

We spend billions and trillions on this tech......and not one person can come up with a colored photo.

Why dont you go back into that hole you must live in were you DONT get ANY INFORMATION on whats going to happen!!!

edit on 6-8-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

I saw that coming. Get ready to explain the hazcam images, their purpose and why they first released low quality hazcam images...over and over and over.

Because people seem to be too lazy to do research their own..it's sad because (IMHO) NASA has really fantastic material to learn everything about their missions...including apps, simulations etc.

reply to post by Druid42

I have an 8mp camera on my year old smartphone.

What sort of telephoto capability does it have? How large is the sensor? What wavelength filters does it have? How well would it survive the trip to Mars and the surface conditions there?

www.msss.com...

reply to post by jonnywhite


Uhm, yea, I just spent 2.5 billion on a space mission to Mars, the last of my concerns is getting my images back in a timely manner. I want crisp and clear, the highest resolution possible, and I'll even wait extra time to get them. That chunk of change they spent is a one time deal.

The only proof they have ARE the images. The rest is he said/she said. Why skimp on one of the most important aspects of the mission?

That doesn't make sense to me.

reply to post by Druid42

The only proof they have ARE the images.

The cameras are not there to prove that Curiosity is on Mars.

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
reply to post by stevenreanimator

 

So its more about making a good compromise.

Thinking about it, how much detail do you need when your just photographing rocks, rocks more rocks and sand....

.......... Or so we think anyway

It's not really that...but this is a multi-million dollar mission and they need to make sure everything's well, eg. before they extend the mast with the better cameras. Always a slight chance it might be lodged under a rock or something...you simply dont risk that even if there is only a slight chance..without being 100% it's safe. People need to be patient and let them do their job

Originally posted by Druid42

Uhm, yea, I just spent 2.5 billion on a space mission to Mars, the last of my concerns is getting my images back in a timely manner.

Yeah, but say Curiosity landed on the edge of a ditch and needed to be moved quickly before it toppled over or something. Why would they want to wait 3 days to get a crisp image of the danger?
That's why a B/W low-res HazCam is necessary, and from an engineering perspective it's a solid design.

reply to post by Phage


My budget was $199.00 USD, not 2.5 billion USD. I get what I paid for.

I'll have to go dig up specs on both of them......Just to find out.

My beef is the lack of anything better than 8mp. Is that really what they decided was adequate for imaging, when there are much higher resolutions available, or is that the model you get when you are sub-contracting equipment specs?

reply to post by Druid42

The resolution will be fine. Can your camera do this? Do you really understand what that "8 mp" means?

This provides the capability to obtain images with a scale of 7.4 centimeters per pixel at 1 km distance, and about 150 microns per pixel at 2 meters distance.

www.msss.com...

There is more to the MSL than pretty pictures for you.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by Phage

 

My budget was $199.00 USD, not 2.5 billion USD. I get what I paid for.

I'll have to go dig up specs on both of them......Just to find out.

My beef is the lack of anything better than 8mp. Is that really what they decided was adequate for imaging, when there are much higher resolutions available, or is that the model you get when you are sub-contracting equipment specs?

I suggest you look at this thread and then shut up about the pictures or you will look really silly!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

Uhm, yea, I just spent 2.5 billion on a space mission to Mars, the last of my concerns is getting my images back in a timely manner. I want crisp and clear, the highest resolution possible, and I'll even wait extra time to get them. That chunk of change they spent is a one time deal.

The only proof they have ARE the images. The rest is he said/she said. Why skimp on one of the most important aspects of the mission?

That doesn't make sense to me.

You still haven't understood anything.

You do not understand why they land a billion dollar probe on mars and NOT immediately activate ALL instruments, cameras etc. RIGHT THE SECOND they land - talking about a mission which will last several years! Rest assured they will gather plenty of data, high-res, stereo etc images AND videos - but just not in the very first minute after they touched down! Be glad they made it to Mars well, seeing how incredible this task is to even get there as perfectly as they did. This was really a picture-perfect landing in any aspect. And THIS is the most important thing right now - we know its up there now, perfectly working and the most challenging and risky part is over!

reply to post by Phage


So it looks like Size doesn't matter.

Color image mosaics of the full 360° martian landscape around the MSL rover can be acquired quickly—within an hour. With a large internal data storage capability of 8 Gbytes, these data can be stored indefinitely (until commanded by the camera operations team to be deleted). Thumbnail images of 200 by 150 pixels are returned to Earth for all images, and then the science team can select which full frames in a given mosaic are to be returned to Earth for scientific analysis.

One Mastcam camera head has a 100 mm focal length, f/10 lens. This provides the capability to obtain images with a scale of 7.4 centimeters per pixel at 1 km distance, and about 150 microns per pixel at 2 meters distance. The camera’s square field of view covers 5.1° over 1200 by 1200 pixels on the instrument’s 1600 by 1200 CCD.

The other Mastcam camera head has a 34 mm focal length, f/8 lens. The camera’s 15° square field of view covers 1200 by 1200 pixels on a 1600 by 1200 CCD detector. The camera can obtain 450 microns per pixel images at 2 meters distance and 22 centimeters per pixel at 1 kilometer distance.

Those are satisfying imaging characteristics whether on earth or mars. Hmmmph.

They (gov) obviously found something on Mars. What's the justification for sending another rover up to Mars when there's already two up there (one active). Supposedly, one of the rovers has a damaged wheel and is stuck and the other is still trucking it.

This is obviously for another purpose if it even landed on Mars. For all we know those pictures are from some barren desert here on Earth. You just never know nowadays.If they in fact landed on Mars one has to wonder their true agenda.

reply to post by Druid42

See. It's not really hard to find out what those "cheap" instruments can do, is it?

reply to post by Druid42



Well done wasn't to hard was it, now will you think before you type!!!

reply to post by Phage


Agreed. Thanks for the link.

I suppose my rant was unjustified after all. I stand corrected.