4 ms·
The technical report is quite large (105MB). Here is a compressed version (6MB): https://www.dvaun.com/files/satcon1-compressed.pdf https://www.dvaun.com/files/
by dvaun 6y ago
The technical report is quite large (105MB). Here is a compressed version (6MB): https://www.dvaun.com/files/satcon1-compressed.pdf https://www.dvaun.com/files/satcon1-compressed.pdf
I'm a bit confused by why they included such high-res images in the PDF in the first place.
Edit: After taking a look at the original I see that they embedded some of the files they created with Photoshop and After Effects directly into the document. They forgot to resize the images, hence the huge object streams in the file.
- ISL 6y agoAgreed that they could have downsampled it for expedience, though the point is that systems spanning the gamut from the human eyeball to cryogenically-cooled 3.2 gigapixel imaging sensors are impacted by these constellations. Those sensors are 3.2 gigapixels at 16-bit depth, so each image alone is 6.4 gigabytes. 108 MB seems small by comparison; that is only one telescope out of all the sky-imaging (optical and radio) systems on the planet.
- dvaun 6y agoI appreciate the sense of scale that your explanation brings. I understand that. The size of the PDF is not a symbol for the work being done here, though. Reducing it makes it cheaper to distribute and easier for viewers to read their findings. That is my reasoning for putting up another version.
- mlindner 6y agoHuman eyeball is not impacted. These satellites are below the limits of human observation generally, even in dark skies.