3 ms·

Astronomy: Clever hack gets 2x Hubble's resolution, from the ground

16 points by charzom 19y ago

ivankirigin 19y ago
Nice line: eliminate the noise that mars space images. I've worked on a dissimilar technique called super resolution. Essentially, you take a median pixel while super resolving over a set of images from a video stream. It is much less useful than getting better cameras and optics. In the case of bomb disposal robots that send compressed, down-sampled digital video streams, just sending a low-compression, full-resolution image turns out to be the cheapest and easiest way to proceed. Such simple solutions don't get you research grants though. One problem with academia is the malice of the new. If it isn't novel, it doesn't quite matter what system you can build. This completely ignores the idea that system integration and deployment yields new information than lab prototypes.
- pixcavator 19y ago
  Would you call what you do, or what those people did, a "hack"? The last point is sad but true.
  - ivankirigin 19y ago
    Well, super-resolution doesn't make sense when you can control the problem. We're stuck with the atmosphere we've got, so any increase in resolution from ground based systems will require this kind of stuff. I can answer your question though if you can explain the meaning behind "hack". It can mean either good or bad, so I don't like using it unless the context makes it obvious.
    - pixcavator 19y ago
      I was referring to the title, "Astronomy: Clever hack gets 2x Hubble's resolution, from the ground", given to the story by the person who submitted it. Whatever the exact meaning of "hack" is, I think it is out of place in this context. That was my point. Sorry for not being clear.
      - ivankirigin 19y ago
        I think it's pretty common to use "hack" to describe a clever algorithm that achieves what others couldn't.
- npk 19y ago
  "One problem with academia is the malice of the new." Astronomy is different. The first telescope was built in 1600. Telescope technology hasn't changed much since then. The engineering has gotten better though -- we spend money to get as many photons as possible. --- In regards to the "X beats HST" stories that seem to constantly populate the news: there's no optical telescope/instrument out there that can image as faint as HST, over such a wide field of view, with such high resolution. There won't be for at least another decade.

16 points by charzom 19y ago

Nice line: eliminate the noise that mars space images. I've worked on a dissimilar technique called super resolution. Essentially, you take a median pixel while super resolving over a set of images from a video stream. It is much less useful than getting better cameras and optics. In the case of bomb disposal robots that send compressed, down-sampled digital video streams, just sending a low-compression, full-resolution image turns out to be the cheapest and easiest way to proceed. Such simple solutions don't get you research grants though. One problem with academia is the malice of the new. If it isn't novel, it doesn't quite matter what system you can build. This completely ignores the idea that system integration and deployment yields new information than lab prototypes.

pixcavator 19y ago
Would you call what you do, or what those people did, a "hack"? The last point is sad but true.
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  Well, super-resolution doesn't make sense when you can control the problem. We're stuck with the atmosphere we've got, so any increase in resolution from ground based systems will require this kind of stuff. I can answer your question though if you can explain the meaning behind "hack". It can mean either good or bad, so I don't like using it unless the context makes it obvious.
  - pixcavator 19y ago
    I was referring to the title, "Astronomy: Clever hack gets 2x Hubble's resolution, from the ground", given to the story by the person who submitted it. Whatever the exact meaning of "hack" is, I think it is out of place in this context. That was my point. Sorry for not being clear.
    - ivankirigin 19y ago
      I think it's pretty common to use "hack" to describe a clever algorithm that achieves what others couldn't.
npk 19y ago
"One problem with academia is the malice of the new." Astronomy is different. The first telescope was built in 1600. Telescope technology hasn't changed much since then. The engineering has gotten better though -- we spend money to get as many photons as possible. --- In regards to the "X beats HST" stories that seem to constantly populate the news: there's no optical telescope/instrument out there that can image as faint as HST, over such a wide field of view, with such high resolution. There won't be for at least another decade.