Cable connected to some device on the Moon?

Can someone help this newbie out?
Why is my comment (page 8) not showing
when i visit this page without logging in?

At first i thought it was deleted for some reason.

Then i logged in and now i can see it?
Did i forget to click some button?

Anyone?

reply to post by Krokodil


I was curious, so I logged out and went to page 8 and found this:

Does anyone know the distances whe're looking at? What size are those craters? How far is the center of the biggest crater from that white... thing? Those pictures are very interesting.

Is that the comment you left. If so, It's there, at the bottom of the page.

Sorry, I can't answer the question for you though

Thanks for help windword
That's my comment alright.

Now i'm confused even more.
Because after i asked for help
i logged out,
went back to page 8 and my comment wasn't there again.

That means you can see it but i can't?
What's going on here?

And who can i ask about it,
because this thread is about something else,
I don't want to disrupt the flow anymore?

?

reply to post by Krokodil


Are you sure it isn't there? Because I can see it when I'm logged out. Anyway, you don't have enough posts yet to create a thread in the "Board Business" forum, where you can ask questions like that. But, you can click on the blue member button under your screen name, and hit alert to send a message to a Moderator, who should be able to help you.

Originally posted by Krokodil
And who can i ask about it,
because this thread is about something else,
I don't want to disrupt the flow anymore?

?

Click on the "TOOLS" menu, then on "complaint", write your complaint and submit it. That message will appear on a forum where all mods can see it.

Soylent Green Is People

They are no clearer than the PanCam and NavCam images returned by Opportunity and Spirit. In fact, I have You are not taking into account the field of view (or "angle of view") when considering the 2 megapixel (MP) camera. The field of view for Curriosity's cameras are relatively small -- smaller than a consumer camera.

That is to say, the angle of view for the rover's MastCam is about 15º. Consumer cameras are about 45º. So it would take three 2 MP rover images to fit across a consumer camera image. That means Curiosity's MastCam images (at a 15º field of view) are comparable to something like a 6 MP image at a 45º field of view -- since the image from Curiosity shows a total view that is 1/3 the size.

edit on 7/17/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

The number of megapixels relates to the sensor and number of pixels it can record, not the field (angle) of view.

This is for a security camera, but the idea is the same -



The angle is determined by the distance between the optics and the sensor or the film. For instance with a 35mm DSLR, a 12mm is nearly hemispherical while the view from a 300mm is very narrow.

You use about a 18mm for say a scenic view, a 90mm to 110mm for macro or portraits and when you get over 300mm you are getting very narrow and it's suitable for distant close-ups. I use a 600mm for wildlife shots and occasionally a doubler to take it to 1200mm if the subject is small or far away. The longer lenses require more light though and you can only shoot on sunny bright days. I imagine that is a consideration also with low light. I won't even mount a long lens on a cloudy day.

2 MP would be suitable for a physical print of only maybe a 3" x 5" if that. For a reasonable print you need at least 200 dpi. A camera like that is mainly for images on a monitor. I'm surprised they don't have least a 10 MP camera mounted.

Thanks everybody for advice, i will look it up.
For now i proclaim it's a glitch, so we can move on.

So what about those distances? that could explain many things..

Blaine91555
I agree with you
It's strange that all those pictures have so pathetic resolution.

Before Curiosity was launched, i was reading about it's spectacular cameras.
But when first pictures arrived, my first thougt - WTF?
That's not much different than MER cameras.
It's good but i was expecting endless zoom-in.

Especially with today's technology, when a satelite can zoom in
on a naked girl on her balcony.
I bet Curiosity could zoom inside a single rock 50m away, but we don't get that.

Same goes for new moon images. You zoom in - you get pixels.
I think they keep the real resolution for themselves, and give us the scraps...

Originally posted by Blaine91555
...The number of megapixels relates to the sensor and number of pixels it can record, not the field (angle) of view....

Yes. Thanks you, but I understand that.

My point is that since the field of view of the 2MP camera on Curiosity is so small, it would take three 2 MP images lined up side-by-side (plus a certain additional percentage in the "vertical" aspect) to make one "normal" consumer camera image.

The number of pixels one image from Curiosity (with its small field of view) would take up if it were being projected onto a 6 or 8 MP consumer camera sensor would be around 2 MP.

Another factors when deciding to use a 2MP camera for Curiosity was bandwidth back to earth (huge files would take much, much longer to transmit, and bandwidth is limited). Plus, the cameras for Curiosity were designed and began to be built around 2004 (don't forget, Curiosity's launch was held up for 2 years due to budget reasons). The technology for 10 MP cameras certainly existed in 2004, but lower MP cameras were more "tried-and-true". NASA likes "tried-and-true" technologies when at all possible. It's cheaper to build.

Originally posted by Krokodil
Before Curiosity was launched, i was reading about it's spectacular cameras.
But when first pictures arrived, my first thougt - WTF?
That's not much different than MER cameras.
It's good but i was expecting endless zoom-in.

There's no such thing as endless zoom-in, reality is not like the CSI TV shows.

I bet Curiosity could zoom inside a single rock 50m away, but we don't get that.

It can (if by "m" you mean metres), but people see the photos and think that what it shows is close to Curiosity, because the zoom lens has that effect.

Same goes for new moon images. You zoom in - you get pixels.

What did you expect, donuts?

It looks like most people have a wrong idea of how photography and digital images work, so they got great (and unreal) expectations and now feel that something is wrong.

There's no such thing as endless zoom-in, reality is not like the CSI TV shows.

reply to post by ArMaP

I'm aware of that, didn't mean that literally, doh.
I simply mean - you zoom in on a rock far away, and its still sharp.
I am also aware that eventually, even super high resolution will become pixelated
if you zoom too far.
But still, you can zoom in much deeper, that's the point.

And when i first saw Curiosity images, they seemed out of focus,
and not WAY better than MER, just a little better.

It can (if by "m" you mean metres), but people see the photos and think that what it shows is close to Curiosity, because the zoom lens has that effect.

Yep, i mean metres.
Nope, i'm not one of those people that think it's close.
I better fill in my profile, perhaps you think i'm 18 but actually i'm 45.

Innocent mistake.

What did you expect, donuts?

No, what i meant is that i have seen incredible details of the Earth surface
taken from orbit (maybe lower orbit?)
And, with todays technology, expected the same on the Moon.
But haven't seen that yet.

Never mind.
The subject is cable and other strange stuff.
Let's zoom in on that.

Originally posted by Krokodil
I am also aware that eventually, even super high resolution will become pixelated
if you zoom too far.
I simply mean - you zoom in on a rock far away, and its still sharp.

When you are looking at an image at 100% zoom then any zooming in will show either bigger pixels or a fuzzier image because of some resampling algorithm applied by the program where you are looking at the image. Web browsers usually use resampling.

But still, you can zoom in much deeper, that's the point.

When you're at 100% there's no zooming in without pixelation.

And when i first saw Curiosity images, they seemed out of focus,
and not WAY better than MER, just a little better.

The first photos are always worse, do you remember the first MER photos?

Yep, i mean metres.
Nope, i'm not one of those people that think it's close.
I better fill in my profile, perhaps you think i'm 18 but actually i'm 45.

No, I don't think you're 18 (and I have no problem with people that are 18 years old), I just don't have any way of knowing what you think or what you know

No, what i meant is that i have seen incredible details of the Earth surface
taken from orbit (maybe lower orbit?)

Most satellite of Earth photos I have seen have worse resolution than LROC, the better resolution photos on Google Earth, for example, are from aeroplanes, not satellites.

Never mind.
The subject is cable and other strange stuff.
Let's zoom in on that.

Seems that some on here think mega pixels quantity is the most important part well its NOT!

Although the sensor is 2MP it is far larger than a consumer digital camera with a higher pixel count.

Some smartphone cameras are now 41mp but my 16mp DSLR would pee all over that when it comes to quality that is due to 2 main factors the quality of the lenses and the simple fact that on a FAR larger camera sensor the pixel sites ie the light sensitive parts are LARGER that means they gather more light and produce a better signal to be processed.

All sensors are actually rated at a BASE iso rate it's amplifiers within the circuits that allow 200,400,800,1600,3200 etc iso ratings when a signal is amplified you get NOISE that degrades the picture.

To determine a sensor's native ISO level, then, you need to look at sensor output for a range of exposure levels close to the saturation point. As you increase the exposure level, you'll find that the resulting values in the RAW files will stop increasing beyond a certain point. That's the saturation level of the sensor, and the amount of light falling on it at that point will tell you the native ISO.

Once you know the native ISO of a sensor, higher ISO values are quite simply calculated as ratios from the native sensitivity level. If a sensor had a true native ISO level of 100, then a true ISO level of 200 would be reached when its pixels were being half-filled with charge, an ISO level of 400 would be when they're 1/4 full, and so on.

At the time of design these 2mp were high spec and due to light levels on Mars you want a sensor with a LARGE PHYSICAL pixel size to get as much light as possible.

Combine that sensor with good optics and the results are more than ok.

HIGH MP are not the be all and end all of digital imaging ONLY the uninformed think that!