Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#2Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth.
2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5 MP one? $100 more if they chose one in 2004 and stuck with it, or $10 more if the camera was added just a year ago. So this makes me think that they just didn't think this would be such an important factor, compared to say making the robot work.
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#3Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
>How much more would it have cost them to use a 5 MP one?
Well they'd need to design it, get it built and delivered in time for the whole SLEW of tests that something going into space has to pass. If it failed any one of those since it would have had to be redesigned (and all within the same size/weight as the original chip because other components would have been build around it) then repeat.
Or...you know, they could use a chip they are completely familiar with, that has been tested and used in similar applications and is completely fine for the mission.
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#4Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
The bottleneck to a large extend is the bandwith/costs of transmitting the extra data. NASA will create higher resolution images by stiching low res imagery for us wanting higher res.
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#5Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
What do you think extra megapixels would give you?
Judging about quality of the camera by pixels count is silly.
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#6Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
This is not a point-and-shoot camera for your grandma to use. It's hardened against radiation, vibration, heat, cold, dust, etc., sending back high-quality RAW images for a planned two-year mission.
So no, it's not "$100 more".
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#7Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
For perspective, a single nut or bolt often costs hundreds to thousands of dollars by the time you are done with the Mil Spec qualification. You are off by a factor of at least 3, likely 4 or 5.
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#8Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
What do you think extra megapixels would give you? Judging about quality of the camera by pixels count is silly.
Exactly, they can pan the camera and stitch the images together - something that is not as easy to do with your handheld camera
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#9Why not change the system so that new technology is able to be fitted?
Re: Mars rover camera project manager explains 2MP camera choice
#10Now that I find out that the main reason for using a 2 MP camera is because that's what the specifications were in 2004, I'm a lot more disappointed than if it was just about the speed of transfer between Mars and Earth. 2 MP cameras were in high-end phones in 2004, but you'd expect NASA to use something a little more advanced than what was available in phones in 2004. How much more would it have cost them to use a 5…
What do you think extra megapixels would give you? Judging about quality of the camera by pixels count is silly.
In a mission to gather data then clearly extra megapixels give you extra data. You cannot argue against that! We aren't talking amateur photography here where the quality of the shot is important and a decent lens beats higher megapixels, we are talking acquiring measurements of the amount of photons in a discrete spatial region. Clearly a higher resolution of sensor might allow scientists to see something not visible in lower resolution images. Although I do admit that in this case I understand the choice due to specification and testing, but to suggest that extra megapixels do not give more information is silly.