Q. Does anyone know?
A. Why do you want 1950's technology?. Polaroids stink, I sold this cameras when they were first introduced and it went like this: Sell 3 cameras and two are returned. The third is/was up in the attic just waiting for gullible people to come along and think Polaroid instant print is the cat's meow. Well I guess 2013 is the year of gullible people. PLEASE don't waste your money! Two dollars a print equals 16 dollars expensive. BUT what if all 8 prints do not come out? The entire 8 prints never came out when I sold the cameras. I can't figure where all the Polaroid cameras are coming from. Polaroid must have stock piled them and then sold them this year. Stick to regular 4x6 prints priced at (here in the USA) from 13 cents to 20 cents a piece. Plus your can get reprints from the digtal file. Never mind that Polaroid prints fade in a few years while digital prints last a least one lifetime, more if stored in an album. Please don't buy.
James Webb Space Telescope better than Hubble?
Q. Just curious if you have heard about this telescope that is supposed to be launched in 2013.
Here's the link:
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/index.html
Also, I'm trying to recall a certain imaging technique that combines x-ray images, infrared images and I believe UV images. After taking multiple images of space with those different cameras, they align them on top of each other to create astounding images.
Here's the link:
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/index.html
Also, I'm trying to recall a certain imaging technique that combines x-ray images, infrared images and I believe UV images. After taking multiple images of space with those different cameras, they align them on top of each other to create astounding images.
A. Certainly will be far more superior than hubble which is great because hubble has seen billions of years into the past at high resolution. They've picked out regions of space wider than tennis ball or base ball and have generated stunning images of many galaxies and nebulal. So the JWST will be superior in that Hubble is over 20 years old, physically and in design. Even with upgrades [to Hubble], a new telescope will blow Hubble out of the water. I just hope they don't have to launch a rescue missin because something "was off."
As for the imaging they used for the Hubble Deep Field and Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, they used a technique called drizzling. The technical nomenclature is: Variable Pixel Linear Reconstruction, or just Linear Reconstruction.
CCD's are used in all types of imaging right down to cheap digital cameras (and expensive ones). The beauty of CCD's is that they can be designed and programmed to capture just about any wavelength of light, from gamma-rays down to radio waves. Of course, in space, comsic radiation is powerful and causes quite a bit of interference and they have to correct for that.
Check out the links below:
As for the imaging they used for the Hubble Deep Field and Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, they used a technique called drizzling. The technical nomenclature is: Variable Pixel Linear Reconstruction, or just Linear Reconstruction.
CCD's are used in all types of imaging right down to cheap digital cameras (and expensive ones). The beauty of CCD's is that they can be designed and programmed to capture just about any wavelength of light, from gamma-rays down to radio waves. Of course, in space, comsic radiation is powerful and causes quite a bit of interference and they have to correct for that.
Check out the links below:
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar