Shining Metallic Objects, Horned Rocks, and Bugs (?) on Martian surface from... Curiosity.

reply to post by wmd_2008
[

Jesus Christ! Even project manager Mike Ravine of Malin Space Science Systems — the company that provided three of the rover’s main cameras — admits that smartphone cameras take better pictures!!!

I'm not going to argue anymore about this!

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by wmd_2008
[

Jesus Christ! Even project manager Mike Ravine of Malin Space Science Systems — the company that provided three of the rover’s main cameras — admits that smartphone cameras take better pictures!!!

I'm not going to argue anymore about this!

If he said it were is the quote, also that's a typical response when you know you can't actually back up your claims!!!

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by wmd_2008
[

Jesus Christ! Even project manager Mike Ravine of Malin Space Science Systems — the company that provided three of the rover’s main cameras — admits that smartphone cameras take better pictures!!!

I'm not going to argue anymore about this!

Here is WHY pixel size and not just pixel numbers are important maybe you can learn something!

Iphone pixel size Pixel Size = 1.4 µm pixel size in Curiosity camera 7.4μm (H) x 7.4μm (V)

Larger pixel size in Curiosity cameras

Here is a link Pixel Size Matters

Here is an example of why pixel size is important if it wasn't why do pro cameras have high pixel count and LARGER pixel size.

From the above link.

Here is a picture taken with a Canon 1D DSLR



Here the same image with a Canon S70 point and shoot.



They look very similar or do they



The OPTICS on the Curiosity cameras are in a different class to your iphone and the LARGER pixel size allows Curiosity's sensor to deal with the light levels better.

Originally posted by ReconX

Even project manager Mike Ravine of Malin Space Science Systems — the company that provided three of the rover’s main cameras — admits that smartphone cameras take better pictures!!!

Hey ReconX & wmd_2008,

I actually think both of you are right ... in a way! Please have a look at the following article from dailymail online: Why the camera on your mobile is better than those on the $2.5 billion Mars Curiosity rover

I think the media pretty much messed it up back then, because they were referring to megapixels when talking about image quality (most of the time) and not to sensor-size. In addition, Ravine justified the use of smaller image files with bandwidth requirements when sending back data using orbiters and the direct transmission capability of Curiosity.

But on the other hand, there's no doubt about sensor size playing a key role regarding image quality:

Megapixels vs. Sensor Size:
The size of the sensor does not directly define the pixel count or megapixels in a sensor. The two numbers should be considered separately (...)

How Size Matters:
One aspect where size matters is in the quality of those pixels. Better yet, let’s describe it as the quality of the resulting image from such pixels. Another term used to describe the pixels in a digital sensor is a light collecting bucket. This seems to be more appropriate as the sensor element itself (the pixel) is actually a tiny little bucket that collects photons of light projected onto it by the lens. The size of these buckets makes a real world difference in the quality of the resulting image. A larger bucket collects more photons and thereby gives the camera electronics more electrical data to form more realistic images (...)

Source

I also love my DSLR camera and can confirm that, when comparing (for example) iPhone 4 and DSLR images there are indeed significant differences, especially when there's not much light or if you need to zoom in to enlarge details. Even if you have the same megapixel resolution of the image, the DSLR photo will have a much lower noise-level and a much higher sharpness (if the images are acquired under the same circumstances). You see it even more clearly if you greatly enlarge sections of those images. And all that is due to the optical system/lens and the way the photons are collected by the sensor and then processed.

Don't know if this helps, just wanted to add my 2 cents ...

reply to post by jeep3r



Hi jeep3r

What DSLR do you have?

I wonder how he thinks his Iphone would cope with the light levels on Mars?

I started 30+ years ago manual SLR manual focus manual exposure the best way to learn!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jeep3r

 

Hi jeep3r

What DSLR do you have?
I wonder how he thinks is I phone would cope with the light levels on Mars?

It's a Canon EOS 550D (18 MP with an APS-C Sensor 22,3 × 14,9 mm), I think they call it 'Renegade 2Ti' or something like that over in the states.

And regarding the images of NASA/JPL: I'm sure they had good reasons for the choice of their system and I can't complain about the quality. What I complain about is that they don't navigate the Rover to where it should be in order to image the exciting stuff (eg. with MAHLI)!

P.S.: So you what's your weapon of choice in terms of photography?

reply to post by jeep3r



Well over the years I have had Cosina SLR , also used (didn't own) Zenith, Praktica,Pentax,Olympus, Canon & Nikon many point and shot digital cameras Fuji & Kodak (used for holidays small size large optical zooms) and now I have a Sony SLT A37 APS-C 16MP.

Hoping to get some shots of Comet Panstarrs if I get some clear weather where I live in the UK.

zoomed

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

looks similar to a prying mantis. ive outlined the head.


Love and harmony
Whateva

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Hoping to get some shots of Comet Panstarrs if I get some clear weather where I live in the UK.

After you posted that link to the PDF on detecting manipulation artifacts in altered images, it actually came to me that you must have a profound interest in the subject matter ... including photography, naturally!

As for Panstarrs, I wish you good luck and of course a big whole in the sky when it passes over your hometown. And please let me know in case you post any results on ATS!

reply to post by jeep3r


Yes anything regarding science, technology and engineering is of interest to me most of my subject from school where science or engineering based including Physics, Applied Mechanic & Engineering Science (more in depth versions of physics) and photography has been a hobby since I left school 30+ years ago and bought my first SLR.

The photography is handy on here as so many threads rely on pictures/video and you see so many BS claims on here you know some members haven't a clue about the subject

Well the comet would have been visible from tonight but thick cloud cover were I live, I will post any pictures if I get any !

Originally posted by wmd_2008

If he said it were is the quote, also that's a typical response when you know you can't actually back up your claims!!!




Ok i'll bite, but last time!

"There's a popular belief that projects like this are going to be very advanced but there are things that mitigate against that. These designs were proposed in 2004, and you don't get to propose one specification and then go off and develop something else. 2MP with 8GB of flash [memory] didn't sound too bad in 2004. But it doesn't compare well to what you get in an iPhone today."
-Mike Ravine-

Even the people who designed and made the camera do not deny it, and instead give reasons to the lower quality due to the amount of data it would produce, reliability, compatibility, radiation, and that they were familiar with the behaviour of the Truesense Imaging chips.

I know you'll come back with some technical specifications, or that I am a worthless unintelligent human being who knows nothing about OPTICS, but I'm just going by what Mike Ravine said, and think he probably knows a bit more about OPTICS than someone with a DSLR.

I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by ReconX


He went on to say

And the low (by modern standards) pixel count needn't be a problem, Ravine says, since the Mastcams will produce stitched images from multiple exposures. 'A mosaic produced from a higher pixel count camera wouldn't offer huge benefits over what we'll be getting.'

See what happens when you READ everything and not just what you want!!!

The LARGER pixel size allows the cameras to cope better in lower light levels they produce less NOISE as I have already shown.

Pixel Size Matters

Or are you going to try and dispute the evidence on that link.

8mp may be more than 2mp but the iphone's smaller pixel size will produce more noise the Curiosity camera also has a 100mm lens so are you going to claim the lens on your iphone is better than this