Dawn Survey Orbit Phase, First orbital phase |
Dawn Survey Orbit Phase, First orbital phase |
Jul 17 2011, 09:09 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
I think it's time we start a new thread
|
|
|
Jul 19 2011, 09:18 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
You did the enlargement? It's great to actually talk to someone who knows what's going on So tell me where I'm wrong here. The diameter of Vesta in that released image is 860 pixels. At 700 m/pixel (1.4 / 2x enlargement) that gives you 600 km diameter, which I *think* is much too large.
If the pixel scale were rounded incorrectly and the original image scale were 1.3 km/pixel then it would correspond to 560 km diameter, which is within the accepted range of Vestian diameters... You're right that reporting pixel scales will inevitably result in mainstream media screwing things up. For that reason I'd actually advocate abandoning pixel scales -- ONLY IF the images get released at their original resolution, or if they are enlarged by whole-number factors that are stated in released captions. Those of us who care about these things will get the numbers right. -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Jul 20 2011, 03:20 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 16-November 06 Member No.: 1364 |
You did the enlargement? It's great to actually talk to someone who knows what's going on So tell me where I'm wrong here. The diameter of Vesta in that released image is 860 pixels. At 700 m/pixel (1.4 / 2x enlargement) that gives you 600 km diameter, which I *think* is much too large. The distance for that image was (or should have been) 15222 km (center of Vesta). You already know the angular extent of one pixel. You tell me where you are wrong... We are working to improve the caption. Again, I ask you if you think the enlargement of the last image was done badly. Reading your blog, I am not sure. I used the Mitchell-Netravali algorithm, which I think is appropriate. Remember, it is a tradeoff between blurriness and jagged edge. |
|
|
Jul 20 2011, 03:29 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14448 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Again, I ask you if you think the enlargement of the last image was done badly. Why is it being done at all? If (as we have been told) there is a constraint on the teams time in producing images for outreach...why waste some of that precious time in un-necessarily enlarging these images? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 1st November 2024 - 12:20 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |