Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Thisguyhere1310 t1_itdibak wrote

That's a few pixels..

I'll take 3 thanks... well how about 4.. I like even numbers.

−2

bakachog t1_itdovc4 wrote

eh, I think this falls more into the category of necessary science than exciting science.

It's a pretty wide angle telescope with a comparatively low angular resolution. It's not for pushing the limits. It's for performing grueling, monotonous labor that will take some time to develop results.

Does have a lot of cool tech going into it tho

65

Youtube-Gerger t1_itdqx8e wrote

I am suprised the scientists didnt get SLAMMED by the camera instead. These headlines nowadays smh

182

mjzimmer88 t1_itds6cd wrote

This is what my wedding photographer needs. We'll need to post a warning to our guests that the photos will get up close and personal with Uranus.

61

TbonerT t1_itdx7w1 wrote

Repost, again and again.

−2

Crackracket t1_itdzm6l wrote

I'd love to see some pictures of earth/cities taken with this

3

Individual-Lab-6695 t1_ite7gif wrote

Governments looking to point this down at Earth. Enemy of the state x3.2 gigapixels.

Just kidding please don’t kill me.

1

soulumn t1_ite7r0k wrote

Finally. I can see my penis

13

wulfgang14 t1_itebh63 wrote

I was expecting the JWST to send back a picture of a little green man mowing his lawn: maybe this one will.

1

NMS-Town t1_iteiacg wrote

Perhaps now you'll see what I'm saying.

1

ThickKolbassa t1_iteiewr wrote

Beautiful thing about SI is you can just say 3.2 gigapixel. Really wish journalists had some scientific literacy.

−1

LuisChoriz t1_itejiif wrote

Salivating like rabies or salivating like hungry?

1

Kor3nse t1_itenibk wrote

Not to be a smart ass, but I cant help but wonder just how clear a picture taken of a spot on earth would be (and what magnification level) with this camera.

I’m kinda imagining this as essentially a space-based microscope 😂

1

esp211 t1_itenwj7 wrote

Can’t wait to get this on my iPhone.

1

IsRude t1_itew4cs wrote

Replying to Youtube-Gerger (#182,254)

"THIS FUCKIN CAMERA HAS THE SCIENCE MEN JUST ABSOLUTELY FUCKIN DAMPENING THE FRONTS OF THEIR TROUSERS"

I'm glad someone else mentioned it, because this headline made me ill.

13

lolsup1 t1_itf2l3y wrote

Can’t wait to see it on the next iPhone

1

SirGunther t1_itfavbr wrote

Can we now see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

6

OldTangerine t1_itfg7nw wrote

Scientists: anthony_adams_rubbing_hands.png

1

RuneLFox t1_itfikvz wrote

Replying to IsRude (#185,048)

A 3200 megapixel camera? Whoa mama! Hummina hummina hummina bazooooooooing! eyes pop out AROOOOOOOOGA! jaw drops tongue rolls out WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF tongue bursts out of the mouth uncontrollably leaking face and everything in reach WURBLWUBRLBWURblrwurblwurlbrwubrlwburlwbruwrlblwublr tiny cupid shoots an arrow through heart Ahhhhhhhhhhh me camera... heart in the shape of a heart starts beating so hard you can see it through shirt ba-bum ba-bum ba-bum ba-bum ba-bum milk truck crashes into a bakery store in the background spiling white liquid and dough on the streets CAMERA WANTS TO FLASH inhales from the gas tank honka honka honka honka masturabtes furiously ohhhh my gooooodd~

10

dejco t1_itfja80 wrote

I wonder if it will find any fucks to give?

1

Specific_Buy t1_itfn3dc wrote

Wouldn’t that make it a 3.2 ultra pixel.

1

WaceMindo t1_itfoabq wrote

the headline sounds like a rule 34 prompt

1

Almatsliah t1_itfowa1 wrote

Are they actually salivating? Because if they are might have neurological problems.

1

Oscarcharliezulu t1_itfsoip wrote

Astronomers don’t salivate. They’re not fukking animals, they’re scientists. Who writes this shit?

1

Volnues t1_itg6hnf wrote

Astronomers are hungry salivating and on their knees for this new camera

1

KatyaPetrovnaZ t1_itg8k95 wrote

does it have them climaxing as well?

if not I fail to see how this is any meaningful accomplishment

1

PitFiend28 t1_itg8knd wrote

My dinner will look so good with that bad boy

1

adaminc t1_itg8sjl wrote

Replying to cgoot27 (#186,188)

It really depends on what is going on in the image, and the exposure settings.

If you are exposing something with relatively low motion, or no motion, these days there really is no difference. But if there is moderate to high motion, than you will see errors start to pop up in the stitched image, especially if the things in motion are moving across stitch edges. If the camera has a built in super-resolution mode where it uses IBIS to shift the sensor, those errors can be even more pronounced and harder to fix in post. Then on top of that, if you need to do longer exposures because the scene is dark, that makes things like motion blurs even harder to deal with because they usually don't look good, or the blur might just suddenly stop, when crossing stitch edges.

So being able to take a single monolithic image will fix most of these issues from the get go.

5

adaminc t1_itg8xdx wrote

I wonder what the pixel pitch is.

1

oh_botha t1_itgs78y wrote

Finally a camera capable of capturing your mom 🙏

4

Aspen140 t1_itgszld wrote

Now the aliens can send high quality n00dz instead of that pixelized shit we’ve been getting.

1

orangutanDOTorg t1_itguf7t wrote

Unfortunately I’m still several decades away from being allowed to rent ultraporn

1

notmichaelmoore t1_ith2it1 wrote

What’s the native print resolution at 300 dpi?

1

graigsm t1_itk5nxh wrote

I wonder if it has enough lens to even resolve detail in that crazy amount of gigapixels.

1

Tackit286 t1_itklg3y wrote

I’ll just wait for the iPhone 32 thanks

1

nachoman420 t1_itnklei wrote

Replying to MusicaofTrance (#207,573)

Right!?

I saw it posted somewhere on Reddit a couple years ago and have had it open on my phone since then. I still look at it fairly regularly.

Im pretty sure it's a bunch of photos stiched together like a panoramic, but it's just so cool

2