It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


high powered telescope with giga pixel camera attached

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 06:37 PM
Forgive me if already posted but didnt find when searched for giga pixel.

Anyway I was wondering the following (im sure people have done it but couldnt find on google)-

Since there are now multi gigapixel cameras

What would happen if you hooked one of these up to the a high powered optical telescope at an observatory like keck or

Would we be able to then zoom in on the image taken by the camera like you can at the link above to see much finer detail? I mean the human eye and the cameras attached to these scopes are pretty limited so I was just wondering of the feasibility or practicality of setting up something like this.

i dont know why it wouldnt work, the telescope brings an image like the moon into closer view then the camera takes a really high def picture that can later be zoomed in on.

Looking forward ot your guys thoughts.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:34 PM
It's actually apples and oranges. The only way you can increase the optical image of an optical telescope is to make a bigger reflecting mirror. Optical zoom is not real zoom. You understand those images are not from a single shot right?
edit on 18-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by Illustronic

I am def a moron, but i didnt get it till now.

Now that i think about my idea is super retarded since its basically like saying why not hook up a microscope to a telescope then analyze the image you see in the telescope through the microscope, since its an optical image there are no pixel per se so should be able to see great detail, but of course that does not work.

I dont know if the giga pixel digital camera concept is the same thing as a the microscope concept but I just am a little upset at how dumb i am.

Would have been cool if this was possible but i guess not. Still wonder what would happen if tried this, what the image would look like

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:25 PM
Dont you just love that sudden rush of enthusiasm though, when the old computer up there spits out some
light bulb of a solution to some percieved function only to have the physics part kick your ass but swift like....?
That initial rush, hmmmm if you could can that, it would sell better than speed or heroin......
Maybe one day we can get wired up to just push a button then we wont have to worry about the physics part ever again......

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
Since there are now multi gigapixel cameras

As far as I know there aren't any gigapixel cameras, that photo was taken with two 25 megapixel cameras.

You can make a panorama like that with any camera and some free software. Obviously, the magnifying level of the lens will limit the distance at which you can see any detail, like in a telescope.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by ArMaP

Well they exist, used in drones.

But not for you or me ;-)

1.8 gigapixel digicam

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:04 AM

On July 12, 2006, six photographers (Jerry Burchfield, Mark Chamberlain, Jacques Garnier, Rob Johnson, Douglas McCulloh, and Clayton Spada), unveiled what is currently the world's largest camera and photograph.

The 3,552-square-foot (330.0 m2) photograph was made to mark the end of 165 years of film/chemistry-based photography and the start of the age of digital photography. It was taken using a decommissioned Marine Corps jet hangar (Building #115 at El Toro) transformed into the world's largest camera to make the world's largest picture. The hangar-turned-camera recorded a panoramic image of what was on the other side of the door using the centuries-old principle of "camera obscura" or pinhole camera. An image of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station appeared upside down and flipped left to right on film after being projected through the tiny hole in the hangar's metal door. The "film" is a 32 feet (9.8 m) by 111 feet (34 m) piece of white fabric covered in 20 gallons (75.71 liters) of light-sensitive emulsion as the "negative".

After exposing the fabric for 35 minutes the image was developed by 80 volunteers using a giant custom-made tray of vinyl pool liner. Development employed 600 gallons (2271 liters) of black-and-white developer solution and 1,200 gallons (4542 liters) of fixer pumped into the tray by ten high volume pumps. Print washing used fire hoses connected to two fire hydrants.

Big image requires very big equipment.


posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by EartOccupant

The DARPA ARGUS-IS, each pixel represents about 6 inches, that's not an extreme resolution. It's purpose is to scan an area of about 100 square miles. So at this resolution you would not be able to make out a newspaper headline, if a typical American license plate was laying flat on the ground it would be 2 pixels. Somehow I don't think this represents the best imaging technology available to the DoD.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

Gigapixel pictures are just HUNDREDS of standard DSLR pictures stiched together is not one picture from a camera with a gigapixel sensor.

The camera is on a special tripod that is programmed to take a picture move slightly take other move again etc etc,then the pictures are stitched together to make the image!

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

It is exactly the same as when you add a huge, multibillion pixel camera to a microscope. You might expect that you can zoom in and get 1000000x enlargement, but you can't. You are limited to about 1000x magnification (if you use oil immersion objectives and condensors), but that is that. if you try to zoom in more and more, the image will just get bigger, and blurrier, but you won't get any more details, i.e. the resolution doesn't get any higher.

that is physics, the resolution you get depends on the optics. It is called the Rayleigh limit.

Resolution is another vital telescope function. Simply put, telescope resolution limit determines how small a detail can be resolved in the image it forms. In the absence of aberrations, what determines limit to resolution is the effect of diffraction. Being subject to eye (detector) properties, resolution varies with detail's shape, contrast, brightness and wavelength. The conventional indicator of resolving power - commonly called diffraction resolution limit - is the minimum resolvable separation of a pair of close point-object images, somewhat arbitrarily set forth by the wave theory at ~λ/D in radians for incoherent light, λ being the wavelength of light, and D the aperture diameter (expressed in arc seconds, it is 134/D for D in mm, or 4.5/D for D in inches, both for 550nm wavelength).

You can read more about it here:
rayleigh limit

top topics


log in