I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos

I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos, I can take better
photos with a $200 digital camera and they had $900 million to play with and
a pristine clear atmosphere, no wonder nasa is in such a mess

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:12:54 -0500, "arizona cowboy"
wrote:

I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos, I can take better
photos with a $200 digital camera and they had $900 million to play with and
a pristine clear atmosphere,

Actually, there has been quite a bit of dust around, but your camera
does not have to send the data a few million miles.

no wonder nasa is in such a mess

I guess that you have not seen the high resolution versions yet, which
according to them is just as good as human eyesight.

Some of these Spirit ones may be more to your liking...
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...c/PIA05003.jpg
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...c/PIA04996.jpg

And here is the big high resolution one...
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...inal-A10R1.jpg

They are JPeg compressed to stop their router from blowing up, but I
trust that they are pleasing enough.

The high resolution shots for Opportunity should be coming slowly over
the next few days.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

"Cardman" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:12:54 -0500, "arizona cowboy"
wrote:

I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos, I can take better
photos with a $200 digital camera and they had $900 million to play with
and
a pristine clear atmosphere,

[Arizona Cowboy: No need to use the "Ready. Fire. Aim!" approach. A little
reading or a polite question would have set you straight before you went off
prematurely.]

Actually, there has been quite a bit of dust around, but your camera
does not have to send the data a few million miles.

no wonder nasa is in such a mess

I guess that you have not seen the high resolution versions yet, which
according to them is just as good as human eyesight.

Some of these Spirit ones may be more to your liking...
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...c/PIA05003.jpg
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...c/PIA04996.jpg


Yes, these are nice. The rovers often seem to send "thumbnails" first,
where the compression is obviously severe.

Jon

"arizona cowboy" wrote in message
...
I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos, I can take better
photos with a $200 digital camera

No you can't.

and they had $900 million to play with and
a pristine clear atmosphere, no wonder nasa is in such a mess

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:12:54 -0500, "arizona cowboy"
wrote:

I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos, I can take better
photos with a $200 digital camera and they had $900 million to play with and
a pristine clear atmosphere, no wonder nasa is in such a mess

Your $200 camera does not have to work at 40 degrees below zero, in an
environment susceptible to cosmic rays and solar radiation (Mars has
no appreciable magnetosphere to protect it.)

And *my* $250 digital camera (a Kodak) doesn't produce images nearly
as good as the 360 degree high-res panorama from Spirit.

Brian

arizona cowboy wrote:

I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos,

Then stop trying to view them on your web enabled cellphone.

arizona cowboy ) wrote:
: I can't believe the ****ty quality of the mars photos, I can take better
: photos with a $200 digital camera and they had $900 million to play with and
: a pristine clear atmosphere, no wonder nasa is in such a mess

That pristine atmosphere is not sky blue like earth. The sun is further
away and the images travel millions of miles through space. I can't
imagine what we are getting as being better. Anyone can see the
improvement over the Viking images, which for the time were very very
good.

Eric