S
SpaceBurger
Guest
Why is it that they still continue to transmit photographs that are the quality of 1963 cameras, from Mars?
The article on the home page showing a new asteroid found looks like someone forgot to turn on the Auto-Focus.
I dont get what the difficulty is for Nasa to put a full 1080 HD camera onto a rover or at the very least a $300 8 megapixel full color camera.
The photographs I keep seeing are always black and white, with "fake" colorizing (is this the 1940's where we are still having to colorize our movies???)
And why are images like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Eagle.jpg
clearly made up of about 900 composite photos because the camera isnt capable of taking a simple picture of a landscape?
Before you say "Well its a very wide angle". I tend to disagree. I can take some pretty spectacular photos of pretty wide angles without even having to use a wide angle lense, in full high definition color. Yet in order to take a picture of a landing site they need 500 photos and false colorization just to take the photo?
If I were standing on the side of that landing site I would bet a million dollars I could take a spectacular photo with one snap of my crappy digital elph camera in full auto mode. And you wouldnt even need to colorize it ...
The article on the home page showing a new asteroid found looks like someone forgot to turn on the Auto-Focus.
I dont get what the difficulty is for Nasa to put a full 1080 HD camera onto a rover or at the very least a $300 8 megapixel full color camera.
The photographs I keep seeing are always black and white, with "fake" colorizing (is this the 1940's where we are still having to colorize our movies???)
And why are images like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Eagle.jpg
clearly made up of about 900 composite photos because the camera isnt capable of taking a simple picture of a landscape?
Before you say "Well its a very wide angle". I tend to disagree. I can take some pretty spectacular photos of pretty wide angles without even having to use a wide angle lense, in full high definition color. Yet in order to take a picture of a landing site they need 500 photos and false colorization just to take the photo?
If I were standing on the side of that landing site I would bet a million dollars I could take a spectacular photo with one snap of my crappy digital elph camera in full auto mode. And you wouldnt even need to colorize it ...