Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Curiosity cameras - why such low res?


Syntarsus

Recommended Posts

Bandwidth isn't an issue, It says in Sky at Night that relay rate is 250Mbps

The resolution will be 3 times that of any previous landscape camera. so it will be able to put great mosaics together. I'm sure there's a reason they chose the cameras they did.

you must have an old phone if it's only 2 Megapixel :grin: I think there's a new Nokia that has 41Megapixels

looking on the web direct transfer rates are 32kbs and relayed comms to the 2 orbiters are 2mbs and 256kbs but only for 8mins a day for each orbiter.

so bandwidth is a bit of an issue you'd want to send smaller files whilst checking the systems out and i assume all data will be queued to maximise the 8 minutes of highspeed comms.

interesting stuff though.

http://marsmobile.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communicationwithearth/data/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

According to the live BC on NASA TV, the pictures appeared to have poor resolution because they wanted to see how much and what kind of dust and debris the lander kicked up and deposited on the lens caps, so took the pictures with the transparent lens caps still on with the first pictures.

Here is a link to an article with decent photos from the orbiter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19150849

For raw images from Curiosity (pics added constantly), go to:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from any knowledgeable input we may all like to make, I am sure with the many years of experience, NASA knows what it is doing. This project has created a great amount of public interest, just lets have a little patience and I am sure we will be astounded by the outcome. Lets face it, it has been an outstanding achievement to get this far :)

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pixel numbers can be a bit misleading anyway. Mobile phone and camera manufacturers know that consumers try to compare like for like products when making purchase decisions. One of the main features customers tend to compare is pixel numbers. As a result, manufacturers tend to produce as many pixels on the sensor as possible, regardless of their quality. Since the size of individual pixels on the sensors vary in size, it cannot be assumed that, say, a 12megapixel sensor is better than an 8megapixel camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need a bit of patience here. They've only just arrived.  Give them a chance to unpack the carry-cot, wellies, coats (for the Martian summer) thermos flasks and Marmite, and I'm sure MSL will send us the most breathtaking images of the Martian surface yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope NASA removed all dust caps from cams :) :)

This makes me wonder about another problem. How do they keep the camera clean? If you look at the twin rovers, their solar panels are often covered with a thick layer of dust, but the images they send back was sharp. How do NASA keep dust off the camera lens and why can't they use the same technology on the solar panels.

Surely they can't be using wipers, for those of us who drive, we all know what happens when the car wiper is used when it's dry. Also, they can't wet clean the lens and we all know from digital camera sensors, anti static coating doesn't work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

looking on the web direct transfer rates are 32kbs and relayed comms to the 2 orbiters are 2mbs and 256kbs but only for 8mins a day for each orbiter.

so bandwidth is a bit of an issue you'd want to send smaller files whilst checking the systems out and i assume all data will be queued to maximise the 8 minutes of highspeed comms.

interesting stuff though.

http://marsmobile.jp...withearth/data/

Very interesting, so the 250Mbps figure is correct, it's just the 's' stands for sol, not second :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, I think it's a marvel that we are able to build a machine with so many moving parts, put it all together in a package which was essentially made by the lowest bidder, fly it half way across the solar system with the accuracy to hit a moving planet, deploy it through the atmosphere, slow it down and land it without it smashing to bits and then have something on board which can show us the surface of our neighbour, from the comfort of our office or home computer screen. Whilst I do understand that we will always want more (which is human nature) I think the first thing we should consider is that to have any sort of camera view of Mars in the first place is in itself, a feat of human inginuity. :)

All in favour say "Ay".

Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from any knowledgeable input we may all like to make, I am sure with the many years of experience, NASA knows what it is doing. This project has created a great amount of public interest, just lets have a little patience and I am sure we will be astounded by the outcome. Lets face it, it has been an outstanding achievement to get this far :)

John.

Absolutely John.

Nasa have the patience to follow a routine that will ensure everything is as it should be. A time related exercise, and I know we're all eager to

see the science projects underway, and of course the splendid Imagery of the Martian landscape too.

The planners, designers, engineers, and all the other people involved with the project, deserve shedloads of praise for this achievement.

Absolutely Incredible, to put it mildly :icon_salut: .

Ron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies.

I'm a bit peeved that some people seem to have unfairly inferred that by asking this question I am questioning NASA's wisdom on the subject. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to be curious about and had I been able to ask NASA directly I would have. I'm in no doubt they would have a solid and well reasoned answer. I'd just like to know what it is. By asking questions we deepen our understanding about stuff.

I doubt its the case that it's because the mission was planned long ago they don't have the latest gear since even my average camera of 7 years ago had 8 megapixels. I agree that the number of pixels is overrated in marketing and other factors like sensor size is equally or more important but my understanding is that that argument only comes in when you get above 10mp. 1600x1200 is less than an average monitor size these days. Of course one easily can stitch several such pics into higher res images but that still doesn't answer the question of why not just use a bigger CCD to begin with?

The article on data rates was interesting and the presumably 16 minutes a day (2 orbiters at 8 minutes each) is obviously very limiting. One bit I didn't understand was:

That same 250 megabits would take up to 20 hours to transmit direct to Earth!

The idea that the CCD would have to be specially constructed to withstand radiation seems like the best answer and something I hadn't thought about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just leaned the NASA rover camera uses the same chip (KAI2020) as the QSI520, FLI ML2020 and Apogee Ascent A2000 CCD cameras. May be some imagers here would have first hand experience on how this camera preform.

It must be a interesting feeling for owners of these cameras to know when their camera is recording ancient photons from a distant DSO in their backyard, one of its cousin is helping to navigate a multi billion dollars robot on Mars in the quest to find ET.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.