4 ms·
And vibrate independently of the camera.
by robotresearcher 9y ago
And vibrate independently of the camera.
- bdamm 9y agoWhether vibration is from the camera or the mirror does not matter; both will reduce quality on the image, assuming a slow exposure. But these exposures look very fast. Even so, if the camera can be made stable, then so surely too can a mirror.
- wutbrodo 9y ago> Even so, if the camera can be made stable, then so surely too can a mirror. I don't think it makes sense to look at it as a binary of stable or not stable: the camera can be made stable to a certain degree, and the mirror introduces additional instability (even if just stochastically). I could understand wanting to minimize that.
- robotresearcher 9y ago> both will reduce quality on the image Yep. So why have two instead of one?
- bdamm 9y agoWhy blow hundreds or thousands of dollars on damaging and replacing lenses? Photography doesn't generally pay well enough to afford that for very long.
- dagw 9y ago"I’d likely be able to replace just the front element, but I picked up this lens for a hundred bucks, so if I want to do a fisheye shot for a future launch, I’ll probably just buy another one." Basically any setup to protect the lens will end up costing about as much as the lens.
- zaarn 9y agoA 30x30cm Mirror (which is enough to get the image to the camera) costs about 12$ with a quick google search. It's even high quality silver. With a small price at the start you can probably 3D print an apparatus that contains stabilizers for both camera and mirror plus a mechanism to easily swap mirrors.