Jogger: the resolving power will be limited by the lens methinks, even in the samples provided, the 100% are useless except for surveillance
Wow, JoeAmateur, that was uncalled for. gasdive he was just throwing out an idea. He wasn't showing off or claiming credit for creating that idea. Bitter much?
Though I have to say, kind of a slow week for DPR, was it not?
And say, how's that Fujifilm X10 review coming? :-p
From the review: "Pocket-sized cameras with manual controls have become increasingly popular.... Arguably, Canon started it off with the S90 (a form factor that is now on its third iteration, the S100)."
I'll argue that. My beloved S80 had full PASM. IIRC, so did the S70 and S60.
A quibble, but I always felt those cameras were underappreciated. :-)
And thanks for the review, DPR!
time traveler: I hope this camera can shoot Full HD video and work with my EF-mount lenses (at least with adapter). Oh one more thing, I need a bigger camera bag... :)
Definitely, a bigger camera bag. I would also definitely need that carbon-fiber tripod I've been eyeing... :-)
KoKo the Talking Ape: I notice that the image captures quite a wide angle. I imagine that is because that spherical lens is designed that way. Is that required, or could you get that high resolution in a narrower field of view? Getting a very high pixel image is not all that groundbreaking if you get those pixels by taking a bigger (wider angle) image.
And is there a theoretical limit to pixels per solid angle in an image, aside from lens limitations? How many pixels are actually in the light within a given field of view?
@JorgeLima, thank you for the comment. You are helping me refine my fuzzy thinking. So let me ask a different question. Is there a theoretical limit to the *information* that a sensor could receive in a a given solid angle? And like rbyll, you mention the diffraction limits created by optics. So just for fun, suppose we do away with optics. How much data could an infinitely refined and sensitive sensor capture in a given solid angle? That might be a quantum physics question.
@rbyll, thank you for that information. Very interesting! So already the DARPA approach, which allegedly should work for up to 50GP, could approach practical resolution limits. I wonder if atmospheric blur for landscapes would be greater than astronomic photos because the air is polluted, heated by the ground, full of weather, etc., or if it would be LESS because astronomic photos are taken through through the entire depth of the atmosphere, albeit much attenuated at the higher altitudes.
Reilly Diefenbach: Your tax dollars at work. More welfare for the military industrial complex. I really don't think it's for shooting Yosemite.
@Button: how much fraud in social support programs is there, actually? How many dollars actually go to people who do not otherwise deserve it? If you make a guess, I will do some research and come up with as reliable a figure as I can find. Deal?
Re military spending, record-keeping is so poor that the GAO has never been able to conduct an audit. There are reports of billions of dollars in CASH sent to Iraq that simply went missing. No records, no trace.
@knutjb, I don't quite follow your first paragraph. Re civil service having lower standards of ethics, that is quite a sweeping statement. Isn't it possible that certain civil departments have different standards than others? My understanding is the social services programs like Social Security and Medicaid are run carefully because people like you and me watch them constantly for waste. Other departments, like the financial or mining regulators, supposedly get away with murder.
I notice that the image captures quite a wide angle. I imagine that is because that spherical lens is designed that way. Is that required, or could you get that high resolution in a narrower field of view? Getting a very high pixel image is not all that groundbreaking if you get those pixels by taking a bigger (wider angle) image.
Agree with knutjb that DARPA has been generally productive. But so have civilian basic research centers, like the famous Bell Labs.
Also agree that defense spending is not like welfare. Welfare is better managed and goes to needy people.
Interesting fact: the US spends on average over $250B *per year* just for military operations defending oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. That would amount to about 1/4 of the current military budget, though the actual proportion changes year to year. When we burn gasoline, we spend federal dollars, just as sure as when we give out foreign aid (currently about $30B).
The Facebook page is stunningly uninformative about this event.
I am shocked and amazed that there are no photos of American cities here. What gives? Anti-American sentiment? We already apologized for that business back there, and also that other thing. And, well, maybe there was one or two smaller things.
Look, most of us don't vote, okay?
KoKo the Talking Ape: Is anybody else surprised at how steady the platform is in the space-based photos like the second one above? I would expect vibration from pumps and motors, thermal expansion or contraction, etc. ISS thing is not connected to the ground or anything else to damp out vibration.
Mmm, mass doesn't automatically mean no vibration. If you hang a massive steel girder in midair and rap it, it still vibrates. Also, the thing isn't isn't a monolith. It is constructed in sections which may be able to vibrate semi-independently. Also, now that I think of it, you would get shocks passing through the structure from things bumping together.
Probably the simplest answer is that the camera is on some kind of vibration-dampening mount. Maybe it isn't necessary, but if I were them, I'd use one.
Is anybody else surprised at how steady the platform is in the space-based photos like the second one above? I would expect vibration from pumps and motors, thermal expansion or contraction, etc. ISS thing is not connected to the ground or anything else to damp out vibration.
Paul Farace: "faded futurism of space travel" -- I am painfully aware they may be right... thanks largely to our hip prizzy and entitlement-stoned government.
Hi all! First post.
In reply to the first post: "faded futurism" doesn't look shiny and new, but who cares? From an engineering point of view, if something works reliably, then it is a waste of money to replace it.