/sci/ - Science & Math

Why can't they take HD full colour pictures?

those cameras are incredibly expensive and incredibly heavy duty, and require special training to use.

be glad red cyan 3D has shrunk to the point it was feasible on the rover, and quit your bitching about how technology isn't where you "want it" yet.

>>4952346
OP here.
From what I've seen, they're still experimenting with the dust covers still on their objectives. Anyway, from the specs written on wikipedia they should be able to release pictures with a resolution up to 1600x1200 in "truecolor" (even though truecolor actually means the 24-bit depth of colour).

Pic related: the first two full-res pictures stuck together

>>4952355
I've seen better photos from the 1970's

>>4952370

it's glorious

>>4952370
Skyrim has better graphics than that.

>>4952355
Anyway, I don't think the rover SENDS pictures in red and cyan. I'm very convinced that it sends two different pictures, taken at the same time from a very close distance (the hazard avoidance cameras). Here on Earth, they were geometrically corrected to remove the fisheye effect and then glued together in anaglyph by NASA.

>>4952391

that seems to be accurate, and is often how red cyan 3D works.

>>4952346
>Why can't they take HD full colour pictures?
these particular cameras are meant just for avoiding obstacles. not for pretty pictures.

>>4952355
there is no such thing as "red cyan 3d cameras"

there are two normal b/w cameras.
how they compose images from them into a single 3d picture is just a matter of choice.

if nasa ever makes raw images available, you make 3d out if them in any format you like.

>>4952391
The pictures are boring.

>>4952377
It's glorious indeed.

Pic: the same shot taken with and without the dust cover on the hazard avoidance cameras.
Interesting how the picture on the right, even if it's without cover, looks like slightly distorted. Might it be that some dust passed through the cover? /shame

>>4952400
>if nasa ever makes raw images available, you make 3d out if them in any format you like.
I want to ask NASA "CAN WE HAS RAW PLZ? KTHXBYE"
but I don't know which channel I should take.
Any ideas?

>>4952411
>looks like slightly distorted
it's from a fish eye lens. picture was shooped to be flatter.

>>4952419

btw, captcha orealyi subcordate

>>4952419
i guess you just have to wait.

here are raw images for spirit&opportunity. first result in google.
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/

>>4952427
None of them has colours :O

>>4952440
well, of course.
that's how every space probe ever works.

you have b/w cameras, and if you want colors you take multiple photos with different color filters, and combine them.

and if you don't have filters, and need pretty publicity photos, you just shoop the colors in.

>>4952440
Because they're raw images taken with filters.

I've found a nice article about the tech stuff going on Curiosity. Check it out:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134041-inside-nasas-curiosity-its-an-apple-airport-extreme-with-w
heels

This gives me an overwhelming feeling.
So earth-like yet so different.

This rover is luckier than any of us will ever be.

I'm whoring because I can

>>4953991

>>4953961
Why is some of that blacked out ?

>>4954024
Because the rover hasn't pictured or it hasn't yet sended the missing parts.

>>4954035
I thought it was because of the fisheye effect on the cameras that they corrected?

>>4954024
it's multiple photos stitched together.

>>4954024
Censored for rover pornography.
It's all naked you know.

>>4954035
>>4954039
>>4954040
>>4954047
umm, So why is it blacked out ? I guess its time to ask /x/ what the deal is.

>>4953961
Wow, it really looks like some earthly desert, like Atacama. Goddamn.

>>4954064
Because Nasa has commanded the rover not to take pictures of those black areas.

>>4954064

It's not blacked out. The rover literally hasn't taken pictures of those areas. There are very low limits on the data Curiosity can send back, so they don't waste its bandwidth sending back pictures of itself.

>>4953995

>Solidworks used for Curiosity parts

PFFFT, as if. Nice student project.

>>4953961
What the fuck is that in the black area on the left hand side? Did they install mirrors on Curiosity?

>>4954084
Thanks for the answer. Makes sense.

>mfw I'm watching the first human steps on Mars in 3D

>>4954172
>infantile cartoon
enjoy the ban

>>4954184
What is the story on that, was the mod just PMSing that day or what?

Is there a wallpaper worthy picture from mars ?

>>4954189
>>4954184
What are you two talking about?

>>4952355
What? Stereoscopic cameras are not complex at all. Red/cyan anaglyph photos can be created by taking a picture, stepping to the left, taking another, and doing a little work in photoshop. In the 60s or 70s they sold stereoscopic cameras that took 3d photos on 35mm film. You'd just view the slides with a little viewer that put one frame in one eye and the other in the other eye. 3D photography is not complex at all.

>>4952355
the cameras themselves are not all that complex, just SUPER robust.
in truth they have two photos (at least for mast cam shots) spaced at roughly the width of a human eye, and with two photos you can basically make any kind of 3d method you want.

nasa does the red/cyan exclusively since everyone can get cheapo 3d glasses easily.
however now that 3d is becoming semi-ubiquitous, nasa can easily make the photos into other file types for other kinds of displays, they just need the demand to do it.

It would be nice of them to provide them up front, but they do also have both of the stereo images available separately so you can make it into whatever kind of stereo format you desire.