9 ms·

Stupid question maybe but like is there a reason the picture quality seems worse than a decent dslr photo? I'm so curious what that photo would look like, taken

Stupid question maybe but like is there a reason the picture quality seems worse than a decent dslr photo? I'm so curious what that photo would look like, taken with an everyday camera, without the bizarre 'scientific' look of these shots.

phonethrowaway 6y ago
speculation, but it's probably compressed before transmission to earth... for obvious reasons.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alpaca128 6y ago
  It would surprise me if they used lossy compression. However I once read about a space probe using a custom image compression and transmission format which does not require 100% data integrity for proper decoding. So if the transmission is cut off after 60% NASA will still be able to view whatever they received. I assume such methods are still applied.
Balgair 6y ago
Generally, these cameras are many years out of date. They don't load up the rovers with the latest gear from today, but with the latest gear from when the design review process was closed. I don't know when that was for Perseverance, but it would not surprise me if that was a decade ago. The cameras are also not specifically designed for image capture, but for scientific study. In that they take images at a wider range of wavelengths than what humans can see. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Additionally, the cameras' chips are not what we have commercially. They are designed to withstand the vacuum, the solar radiation on the long transit, and for use on the Martian surface for many years. You can't swap them out, ever. As such, they are much more 'rugged', which may effect image quality as well.
- reilly3000 6y ago
  Yep, that’s the same reason why it runs on a PowerPC750 chip. They cost $200k+ for under 200Mhz on a 150-250 nm process, but can withstand up to 1,000,000 rads of radiation and function within extreme temperature ranges for decades. They have been proven to work in the harshest environments on prior missions, and the risk of an unproven processor is giant; a CPU failure could jeopardize the mission just as much as a crash landing. Design constrains are so very different when you shoot something 140M miles away!
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Especially since hardware is generally designed for speed and performance instead of reliability. Didn't NASA use a lot of 486es for a long time for this same reason? But yeah. It's not a problem if a CPU gets buggy or dies in a datacenter with 10K similar ones, because of redundancy and a completely different approach to software workloads nowadays. I mean a lot of production systems barely even care what CPU they run on. And ~200 Mhz is still powerful enough for a LOT of applications.
    - darkr 6y ago
      > Didn't NASA use a lot of 486es for a long time for this same reason? They were also using Amigas until ~2006 for various duties, including launch control.
  - wiz21c 6y ago
    Could you explain why such a processor is 1000x more expensive than a non-rugged one ? I mean, considering the future of earth, I'd certainly welcome a processor that could withstand a lifespan of decades (including the harsh "I'm going to unsolder it to put it in another device" environment).
    - ben_w 6y ago
      From this list, I assume the isotopic purity is the biggest contribution to the price, though I expect relative lack of mass production doesn’t help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening
antmldr 6y ago
Scott Manley recently did a pretty good ELI5 on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wah1DbFVFiY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wah1DbFVFiY
- dmix 6y ago
  It takes 15min but this plus the comment section on CMOS (can’t link directly) is excellent. The other comment about being made a decade ago is also relevant and accurate. They will certainly be better next time with evolutions in camera tech thanks to smartphones. TLDR worth a listen
dmix 6y ago
My question is why was the “sound of Mars” release only 18 seconds long? Why not record hours of what it sounds like to be on another planet? Even the sound recordings from decades ago on (I think Titan) was only a short creepy clip. I understand it’s mostly going to be wind and interspliced with the robots sounds but I still don’t get how we don’t have hours of Mars already.
- histriosum 6y ago
  My guess would be bandwidth. Every bit of bandwidth is precious, so they probably dont have the spare budget to send long audio files without obvious scientific value...
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Maybe after they complete their primary and secondary mission objectives, they'll find spare time and compute to stream a couple hours of Martian ambience. Does NASA have a suggestion box for after hours / extended program experiments?
    - zaik 6y ago
      I doubt a NASA suggestion box open to the internet will be very fruitful.
      - dmurray 6y ago
        I for one look forward to Rover McRoverface in the 2022 launch window.
        bregma 6y ago
        Marvin McMarsface is to take a close-up look at the Face On Mars in 2023 and then implant an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator to eliminate Mars because it obstructs our view of Venus.
Symbiote 6y ago
Is it simply dusty/hazy? Some of the fuzzy photos remind me of the Sahara Desert when there was a little wind.
- OrbitRock 6y ago
  Dusty. Gives the sky a dull reddish color. Also makes Martian sunsets blue.
cosmonaughty 6y ago
The video has to be grainy. Otherwise it's much easier to see that it's fake.
pkaye 6y ago
In some interviews with the mast cam engineers, they say they can capture higher resolution images later on. Maybe they were reducing the image size to get then transmitted quicker.

phonethrowaway 6y ago

speculation, but it's probably compressed before transmission to earth... for obvious reasons.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alpaca128 6y ago
It would surprise me if they used lossy compression. However I once read about a space probe using a custom image compression and transmission format which does not require 100% data integrity for proper decoding. So if the transmission is cut off after 60% NASA will still be able to view whatever they received. I assume such methods are still applied.

Balgair 6y ago

Generally, these cameras are many years out of date. They don't load up the rovers with the latest gear from today, but with the latest gear from when the design review process was closed. I don't know when that was for Perseverance, but it would not surprise me if that was a decade ago. The cameras are also not specifically designed for image capture, but for scientific study. In that they take images at a wider range of wavelengths than what humans can see. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Additionally, the cameras' chips are not what we have commercially. They are designed to withstand the vacuum, the solar radiation on the long transit, and for use on the Martian surface for many years. You can't swap them out, ever. As such, they are much more 'rugged', which may effect image quality as well.

reilly3000 6y ago
Yep, that’s the same reason why it runs on a PowerPC750 chip. They cost $200k+ for under 200Mhz on a 150-250 nm process, but can withstand up to 1,000,000 rads of radiation and function within extreme temperature ranges for decades. They have been proven to work in the harshest environments on prior missions, and the risk of an unproven processor is giant; a CPU failure could jeopardize the mission just as much as a crash landing. Design constrains are so very different when you shoot something 140M miles away!
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Especially since hardware is generally designed for speed and performance instead of reliability. Didn't NASA use a lot of 486es for a long time for this same reason? But yeah. It's not a problem if a CPU gets buggy or dies in a datacenter with 10K similar ones, because of redundancy and a completely different approach to software workloads nowadays. I mean a lot of production systems barely even care what CPU they run on. And ~200 Mhz is still powerful enough for a LOT of applications.
  - darkr 6y ago
    > Didn't NASA use a lot of 486es for a long time for this same reason? They were also using Amigas until ~2006 for various duties, including launch control.
- wiz21c 6y ago
  Could you explain why such a processor is 1000x more expensive than a non-rugged one ? I mean, considering the future of earth, I'd certainly welcome a processor that could withstand a lifespan of decades (including the harsh "I'm going to unsolder it to put it in another device" environment).
  - ben_w 6y ago
    From this list, I assume the isotopic purity is the biggest contribution to the price, though I expect relative lack of mass production doesn’t help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening

antmldr 6y ago

Scott Manley recently did a pretty good ELI5 on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wah1DbFVFiY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wah1DbFVFiY

dmix 6y ago
It takes 15min but this plus the comment section on CMOS (can’t link directly) is excellent. The other comment about being made a decade ago is also relevant and accurate. They will certainly be better next time with evolutions in camera tech thanks to smartphones. TLDR worth a listen

dmix 6y ago

My question is why was the “sound of Mars” release only 18 seconds long? Why not record hours of what it sounds like to be on another planet? Even the sound recordings from decades ago on (I think Titan) was only a short creepy clip. I understand it’s mostly going to be wind and interspliced with the robots sounds but I still don’t get how we don’t have hours of Mars already.

histriosum 6y ago
My guess would be bandwidth. Every bit of bandwidth is precious, so they probably dont have the spare budget to send long audio files without obvious scientific value...
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Maybe after they complete their primary and secondary mission objectives, they'll find spare time and compute to stream a couple hours of Martian ambience. Does NASA have a suggestion box for after hours / extended program experiments?
  - zaik 6y ago
    I doubt a NASA suggestion box open to the internet will be very fruitful.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      I for one look forward to Rover McRoverface in the 2022 launch window.
      - bregma 6y ago
        Marvin McMarsface is to take a close-up look at the Face On Mars in 2023 and then implant an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator to eliminate Mars because it obstructs our view of Venus.

Symbiote 6y ago

Is it simply dusty/hazy? Some of the fuzzy photos remind me of the Sahara Desert when there was a little wind.

OrbitRock 6y ago
Dusty. Gives the sky a dull reddish color. Also makes Martian sunsets blue.

cosmonaughty 6y ago

The video has to be grainy. Otherwise it's much easier to see that it's fake.

pkaye 6y ago

In some interviews with the mast cam engineers, they say they can capture higher resolution images later on. Maybe they were reducing the image size to get then transmitted quicker.