Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FireTrickle t1_iu0znux wrote

Finally a full picture of your mom can be taken

731

shahooster t1_iu16rfu wrote

Now available in the Trail Cam^™️ model, for when you’re tracking cougars.

48

MaverickMeerkatUK t1_iu1ujz8 wrote

Even flex tape can't fix that damage

30

Nomis_Salomis t1_iu27qf3 wrote

But the all new flex past can! Step 1 create a mold of yourself out of flex past. Step 2 melt your self down, Step 3 pour into mold and wate to cool!

4

Shinnyo t1_iu4dbyq wrote

It's crazy how everyone gather for "your mom" jokes.

And yet, we still aren't enough to gather around your mom

2

Theseus_Spaceship t1_iu2fsmz wrote

I knew this would be the top post when I got here.

1

Shurigin t1_iu3w3ag wrote

I mean it was the top comment the last time this story was published

1

BrockLee76 t1_iu0ejwu wrote

Once Instagram influencers get hold of this, that will require some next level Photoshop

112

Alwayswandering4 t1_iu0xw2t wrote

Can't wait to see Apple strap this onto a phone and charge millions (and people buy it without blinking an eye)

6

pentatomid_fan t1_iu1pijz wrote

People will blink, but just right as their photo is being taken with it.

10

PiBoy314 t1_iu30yeo wrote

Interestingly, phone cameras are already nearing the physical limits of how good they can be. With a certain aperture. You can only resolve details of a certain size, even with infinite pixels. There’s definitely some funky stuff with including more cameras, but you notice the megapixels on phone cameras haven’t increased much because that’s not the limiting factor

7

musiquededemain t1_iu3gwt8 wrote

The sensors on phone cameras have a lot of catching up to do.

3

bsloss t1_iu4bj41 wrote

The sensors are pretty damn good for what they are… the problem is to get better quality pictures you need bigger sensors, and to get light to focus on bigger sensors you need thicker and larger lenses, and so far no one is interested in making a phone with a giant 1” thick lens sticking off the back.

1

PiBoy314 t1_iu4geyn wrote

The only way to get more resolution would be to make the camera lenses larger (or add more of them) just due to the wave nature of light.

1

danielravennest t1_iu5i37l wrote

The Rubin telescope, like other telescopes, is a really big camera with a really big sensor. The sensor is made of smaller tiles, and the individual pixels are large to collect more light when looking at the sky.

1

JackIsBackWithCrack t1_iu4kver wrote

And then for Samsung to copy it a year later

1

Duaality t1_iu5n4pg wrote

Samsung are early adopters and even pioneers of a lot of phone tech - I think you meant to say Apple

1

JackIsBackWithCrack t1_iu602rf wrote

You are willfully ignorant if you don’t notice all of the design decisions and new tech that was pioneered by Apple becoming the norm. AirPods, no headphone Jack, etc.

−1

citybadger t1_iu0x9ly wrote

3.2 Gigapixels. Stuff like this leads to crap like “a million billion” because you’re afraid to use quadrillion.

103

caiuscorvus t1_iu14qnr wrote

Megapixels makes sense since most people will be able to go: oh! 300x a phone camera. Got it.

Changing to an unfamiliar unit (gigapixels) opacifies the meaning.

38

Napsack_ t1_iu1mlrw wrote

Now that (opacifies) is a new word for me.

21

Rhamba t1_iu3171m wrote

Pacify-opacify

Opaque - oopaquify?????

2

Kerbal634 t1_iu1zciz wrote

Phone buyers getting a 64 GB phone and wondering why there are 64,000 MB in it instead of GBs

17

quantum_trogdor t1_iu21tb4 wrote

Every one that has a phone or computer is familiar with the prefixes of Mega and Giga, and most likely Tera

7

cannondave t1_iu3kwsh wrote

Yes just like people refuse to say kilometers, millimeters. Instead they count using bodyparts and football fields, 5/8 ths of a thumb.

6

uncephalized t1_iu16xds wrote

Sure, and British Columbia is 3.2 megameters from New Brunswick. 🙄

4

chezicrator t1_iu0zz94 wrote

I remember selling 5 mega pixel cameras at Circuit City when I was 18. It was the hottest thing available at the time. And the paltry memory available cost almost as much as the camera.

59

ElementalWeapon t1_iu1ja1c wrote

I remember when I was gifted a digital camera in 2004 and couldn’t use it for a while because the 512MB SD card cost like $60 and I didn’t want to plop down the cash for it.

20

[deleted] t1_iu2jdm7 wrote

[deleted]

7

Sloofin t1_iu3qgys wrote

I remember buying a 512 kb ram expansion for my Atari for £99. Also remember getting a 16kb ram expansion for a 1k zx81 back in the day for around £50. Yeah I’m old.

6

magicsouth t1_iu5n5gs wrote

I was at a Ritz Camera in the south when digital cameras were relatively new and for a while some locals called them “mega pickles”.

“I want a reliable, cheap camera with the highest mega pickles possible”

1

BornInMappleSyrop t1_iu21yh2 wrote

How much space on a hard drive would a picture like that take. It must be insane!

19

herrbdog t1_iu28d6e wrote

9.6gb, raw uncompressed, they won't want to compress the original

27

Just_Another_Scott t1_iu2jklj wrote

Their website says about 15 terabytes a night. So take that for what you will.

> Rubin Observatory R&D has led to a new-generation imaging CCD which is highly segmented, low noise, and sensitive from the UV to the near IR. The speed with which Rubin Observatory can cover half the sky will produce about 15 terabytes (TB) per night, leading to a total database over the ten years of operations of order 50 petabytes (PB) for the raw data, and 15 PB for the catalog database. The total data volume after processing will be over 100 PB

So total data requirements exceeds 100 PB over a 10 year period.

https://www.lsst.org/about/dm/technology

25

TheRealMrChips t1_iu2qkvr wrote

Which seems like a lot, but with 30TB HDDs coming in 2023 and even larger capacities in the next couple years, 100PB won't be all that hard to make happen over 10 years' time, even with redundant storage and backups taking it to 300-400PB of "actual" storage footprint.

13

bsloss t1_iu4ddam wrote

Back of the napkin math says it would only take 5 to 10 racks of something like this to cover the storage requirements. Not something that comes cheap, but certainly doable and still below the industrial scale of massive data centers run by most big tech companies.

5

cp5184 t1_iu3y234 wrote

There's lossless compression. For something like this they might want to develop a specialized compression format.

6

herrbdog t1_iu4bs72 wrote

of course there is. PNGs are great! JPGs ate my bane (i'm a graphic artist)

but now i wonder if the data-per-pixel will be ONLY 3 channel (RGB), 1 byte, or if it will have more than 3 channels, and will it have more range per pixel (2 bytes gives 16,384 levels of grey per channel instead of only 256... much more nuance and detail.

i should probably look it up instead of speculating lol

3

rocketsocks t1_iu5ax4l wrote

It's 1 channel per image not RGB, this camera doesn't have a mosaic filter on the sensor itself the way consumer digital cameras do. Like almost all scientific imagers it instead is monochromatic but uses filters that can be rotated into place through an automated mechanism. This provides higher resolution for each color channel while also allowing for adjustments to the exposure timing for each channel depending on how much light it passes (which is much more desirable from a scientific standpoint). This particular camera will have 5 wideband color filters covering the visible through near-infrared bands but it won't have an exact match of red, green, and blue color channels.

So an exposure of a particular patch of the sky in all color channels will actually look like 5 successive exposures (or 6 if there is an unfiltered pass) through each of the filters.

It will have 18 bits per pixel of dynamic range.

2

herrbdog t1_iu5hxtd wrote

well then the files would be smaller... only 18 bits per pixel? well that's not that much actually (only 262,144 possible color values), but is probably sufficient for the data acquired. idk, i'm not an astronomer :(

so 6 channels, but only 3 bits per channel?

1

rocketsocks t1_iu5js7y wrote

Every exposure is 18 bits per pixel, each channel is a separate exposure. So a full image of one patch of the sky would be either 5 or 6 individual exposures for each color channel (plus a clear exposure) which would be equivalent to 90 or 108 bits per pixel.

There isn't a 1:1 match of filter channels to RGB colors but for just the 3 color channels closest to RGB that would be the equivalent of 54 bits per pixel, or 18 quadrillion colors.

2

herrbdog t1_iu5n0l0 wrote

GOT IT, thanks!!! (yeah i realise it doesn't convert directly to RGB then)

intense detail then.

1

bsloss t1_iu4ecs6 wrote

Total hard drive cost is likely around a million bucks. If the specialized compression format can save half of that it’s no small chunk of change, but I can also imagine that high development costs could make even significant storage savings not worth the hassle of doing something custom and worrying about potential bugs.

1

Flangepacket t1_iu0sig4 wrote

Looking right into my thoughts with that mf. Don’t worry it’s mainly cats, dinner choices and that monkey playing the cymbals.

15

SweatyToothed t1_iu0iw85 wrote

But the smell-o-scope is brilliant I tell you!!!

10

DIrtyVendetta80 t1_iu2qk1o wrote

Great. Can’t wait to have eight of them on the new iPhone by 2024…

6

DarthBrooks69420 t1_iu0zkii wrote

Time to get to work on one we can send to the moon. If it takes 7 years to build maybe starship will be ready by then.

4

danielravennest t1_iu5it63 wrote

The Moon is a lousy place for a telescope. Dust on the lunar surface is electrostatically charged and sticks to everything. Some of it is broken glass shards, and also scratches things. During the day the Moon gets to the boiling point of water, and at night to far below zero, so thermal expansion will warp the optics.

Open space is better for telescopes.

1

emerging_potato t1_iu2f6ei wrote

First camera to be able to get a close up of the moon, and a banana for reference, in the same shot

2

ahmeij t1_iu3rky5 wrote

Any phone camera can do that :)

1

Bender352 t1_iu1dlc1 wrote

When does the next Samsung Galaxy gets the new 3,3GPix camera?

1

azdood85 t1_iu1np4p wrote

Depends on if you want Bixby permanently installed.

3

19Chris96 t1_iu2x60j wrote

The fact they didn't say 3.2 Gigapixels is surprising.

1

lazy_elfs t1_iu32mpk wrote

Could you imagine having to try to enlarge that photo on your phone…. You’d be swiping for hours

1

Paradox68 t1_iu49dhw wrote

Oh great, it sure doesn’t look like they’re getting ready to launch that thing into space in order to watch all of us…..

1

UndendingGloom t1_iu4d1kq wrote

My gf will still insist the camera is "changing" her face in the photos.

1

Riegel_Haribo t1_iu2n6xz wrote

The camera was complete and taking pictures of broccoli in 2020: https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2020-09-08-sensors-world-largest-digital-camera-snap-first-3200-megapixel-images-slac.aspx

0

danielravennest t1_iu5jra1 wrote

The sensor was taking pictures of broccoli in 2020 using a pinhole camera. The finished camera won't be shipped till mid-next year. The camera will be getting its updated refrigeration system before the end of this year, at which point it will be complete. It will then go through final testing, before being shipped to Chile for installation on the telescope.

1

MechaStewart t1_iu2wern wrote

One last family portrait before the divorce. Nice.

0

mrdiyguy t1_iu35uki wrote

This was sponsored by pornhub, and they are allowed to use it 50% of the time (at night)

0

tallwookie t1_iu3bws6 wrote

that group photo posing in front of the camera really reminds me of early 90s rap album covers.

0

strat0caster05 t1_iu1ue3b wrote

Cellular providers with dollar signs in their eyes be like, “Just think of the data usage!”

−1

Whitesecan t1_iu2zk6o wrote

We could count the hairs on someone's ass on Uranus in high quality.

−1

[deleted] t1_iu1xi6g wrote

I just thought of a hilarious phallic joke, but I realized the only people who see this are highly intelligent. 😂 I’m high as shit. 🥌👈🏿curling stone because I’m stoned.

Don’t mind me. 🤭

−18