3 ms·
I think the limiting factor is the air, not the lens. That's why astronomers put telescopes in space (to avoid the air completely), or use a huge array of camer
by wisty 15y ago
I think the limiting factor is the air, not the lens. That's why astronomers put telescopes in space (to avoid the air completely), or use a huge array of cameras and postprocess it.
I'd expect the big gains are in stitching together lots of signals, possibly over time, and extracting interesting features automatically. I'd think resolving stuff over time can only be done if you already know what you are looking for (to avoid massive dimensionality problems), or for static features. Still, that's an interesting subset.
- count 15y agoJust like you can link a bunch of smaller telescopes on the ground to compensate for air distortion and get a significantly higher resolution, it should be possible to do the same with a bunch of satellites looking down.
- a-priori 15y agoBut then you have to deal with parallax from nearby objects on the ground. That would limit its usefulness in hilly, mountainous or urban environments.
- dredmorbius 15y agoThat's something computers are really, really good at. The cameras don't have to be too widely separated. A little time and space helps a lot. The main problem is that this reduces your areal coverage as you're dedicating multiple sensors to a single sensing target.
- Create 15y agoPhotostacking. Kalman filter. Differential.