[meteorite-list] Iron Meteorite on Mars (Color Photo)

From: Darren Garrison <cynapse_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jan 20 10:51:20 2005
Message-ID: <rujvu0l25lg8mp2f3dlkctsedmjbt4r61m_at_4ax.com>

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:25:42 -0700, "Chris Peterson" <clp_at_alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>imaging like this, it is really only meaningful to talk about resolution in
>an angular sense, not in terms of the number of pixels. When we look at the

I think the problem is that we were using two different meanings of the word "resolution". For you,
the one that matters (and that you were going by) is the one related to the density of information
the lens can "pick up" (trying to avoid using the term "resolve"). But for me, working mostly with
the output end, not the input end, "resolution" means the number of pixels, period (given, again,
that the optics are good enough that the pixels are "meaningful"). Meaning, when I think of my
monitor resolution, I think in the terms of it being 1600x1200, period, not "1600x1200 over a 19
inch diagonal surface". And, again, when I think of the resolution of the output of my camera, I
think of it as 2560x1920, peroid, not "2560x1920 over a 2/3 inch CCD" (which, at least according to
a quick look at one source, is about 5 microns per CCD cell).

So when the earlier poster asked about higer resolution photos being available in the context of
wanting a large photographic print of the image, IMHO the response that the rover's CCD isn't very
high resolution is the proper use of the term "resolution" as related to the issue of the size of
photographic prints-- on the output end, it doesn't matter what the limits of the optics and CCD
are-- what matters is that there are not and will not be enough meaningful pixels of information to
get a good looking large print.
Received on Thu 20 Jan 2005 10:53:22 AM PST