IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Photographic "Footprints", definitions thereof
ncc1701d
post Jun 28 2017, 02:07 AM
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 21-August 06
Member No.: 1063



Concerning the definition of a "footprint"
Say a spacecraft flying overhead of planet is pointing its camera rectangular shaped FOV down at the surface. If 1 or more of the 4 corner boundary rays stops intercepting with the surface, is the area under the FOV still considered a "footprint"? Perhaps it only matters if the borsight ray of the FOV intercepts with the planet to qualify as a "footprint" ?
I tend to think all of those 4 cornors rays would have to be intecepting the surface to qualify as a "footprint" but
I just wanted some clarification maybe from an expert.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RoverDriver
post Jun 28 2017, 05:35 AM
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 887
Joined: 29-September 06
From: Pasadena, CA - USA
Member No.: 1200



Corners not necessarily define the footprint of a sensor. A camera lens distorts the field of view even when pointed perpendicular to a surface. A fish-eye lens is obviously an extreme of this, but even carefully designed lens have the same problem. Then consider that not every observation is done nadir to the surface, so the footprint can vary in shape quite considerably. The projection of the sensor onto the surface depends on the surface as well. Then you have sensors like CRISM that swing across track giving a butterfly wings footprint.

Paolo


--------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions, ideas and information included here are my own,and should not be intended to represent opinion or policy of my employer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ncc1701d
post Jun 28 2017, 06:26 PM
Post #3


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 21-August 06
Member No.: 1063



QUOTE (RoverDriver @ Jun 28 2017, 06:35 AM) *
Corners not necessarily define the footprint of a sensor. A camera lens distorts the field of view even when pointed perpendicular to a surface. A fish-eye lens is obviously an extreme of this, but even carefully designed lens have the same problem. Then consider that not every observation is done nadir to the surface, so the footprint can vary in shape quite considerably. The projection of the sensor onto the surface depends on the surface as well. Then you have sensors like CRISM that swing across track giving a butterfly wings footprint.

Paolo



Thank you Paolo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Jun 28 2017, 07:57 PM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (ncc1701d @ Jun 27 2017, 06:07 PM) *
If 1 or more of the 4 corner boundary rays stops intercepting with the surface, is the area under the FOV still considered a "footprint"?

If an image contains the entire target planet, then none of the four corners intersect the planet, and if the planet were off-center, the boresight might not intersect the planet either, but the footprint would still be the entire visible part of the planet.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jun 28 2017, 09:55 PM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 7971
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Edited topic title for clarity.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th August 2017 - 10:43 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.