IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

new THEMIS color releases, Images showing color variations.
DDAVIS
post Jun 22 2006, 02:23 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 194
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 10



First of a new series:

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20060622a
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
edstrick
post Jun 29 2006, 04:31 AM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



A FUNDAMENTAL problem pushing Mars camera designers toward pushframe systems is the relatively low light levels and low to very low contrast levels of surface imaging at moderate to low sun angles through that hazy atmosphere. The dwell-time of a single-pixel-wide, gadzillion-pixels-long detector's pixels on the surface is "NanoSized" as the resolution of the camera gets "SuperSized".

A pushframe system, perfectly (to a subpixel scale) perpendicular to the moving field-of-view, multiplies that dwell time by the number of pixels the detector is wide. Signal-to-noise ratio goes from c__p to good or realliy fine. That's particularly important for color work on a low-color-contrast (in many areas) planet.

Whatever lead to the multiple internal reflection problems and whatever else is wrong or marginal in the Themis camera, seems to be fixed or avoided in ouir spiffy new "Ancient-Martian-Astronauts-Espionage-Orbiter" ... oops... I mean Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter's supercam. The test images taken under unfavorable conditions show vanishingly small brightness or color artifacts in the released data (made using preflight or first-draft inflight calibration files and software). You can see some stitching-errors in the overlaps between adjacent CCD's in the multi-detector system, but that's not bad at all for first-try tests.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Jun 29 2006, 06:37 AM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2508
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (edstrick @ Jun 28 2006, 09:31 PM) *
A pushframe system, perfectly (to a subpixel scale) perpendicular to the moving field-of-view, multiplies that dwell time by the number of pixels the detector is wide.

I think you're confused. What you're describing is called Time Delay Integration or TDI, and has nothing to do with pushframe, which is a multispectral technique. It's true that these can be combined, but I don't know of that being done in any previous flight instrument (though our JunoCam instrument will do it to a limited degree.)


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th April 2024 - 03:43 PM
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 funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.