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:
What are some really cheap HD cameras under 200$?
Q.
A. The best camera under $200 is currently the Nikon P310.
Well, maybe under $200. Nikon had a $100 instant rebate that expired on Mar 30, 2013. Check back periodically to see if that rebate is extended or not. Otherwise, you may be spending about $50 more, which is still a good deal.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842326-REG/Nikon_P310B_Coolpix_P300_Digital_Camera.html
This camera normally sells for $300+, but it has just been discontinued for it's replacement, the P330. Since this is an annual (or semi-annual) event with most camera manufacturers (of compact cameras), you can often pick up an outstanding camera at a low price when they first become discontinued.
However, when this happens you have to act farily quickly as the stock is limited to what is on the dealer's shelves.
Why do I like the P310?
First, it has manual exposure controls (prorgam, shutter/aperture priority, manual), This gives you maximum flexibility in composing your photos.
Second, it has a fast f/1.8 lens, which rivals even the better grade DSLR lenses. What does this mean? Superior low-light performance, as the camera will gather 2 to 4 times more light than the typical compact camera.
It also does up to 1920x1080p @ 30fps "full" HD with stereo audio. But I am not much into video so that is not something I often use. If I want to do video, I have a camcorder for that.
And I own this camera, so it is not something I would recommend without having some experience with it. While the zoom range of this camera is less than those ridiculously high-powered zooms on bridge cameras, the lens on the P310 is vastly superior to those cameras. So while you won't be able to take a photo of a bird from a mile away, you will be able to take better photos within the range of the P310's zoom.
Well, maybe under $200. Nikon had a $100 instant rebate that expired on Mar 30, 2013. Check back periodically to see if that rebate is extended or not. Otherwise, you may be spending about $50 more, which is still a good deal.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842326-REG/Nikon_P310B_Coolpix_P300_Digital_Camera.html
This camera normally sells for $300+, but it has just been discontinued for it's replacement, the P330. Since this is an annual (or semi-annual) event with most camera manufacturers (of compact cameras), you can often pick up an outstanding camera at a low price when they first become discontinued.
However, when this happens you have to act farily quickly as the stock is limited to what is on the dealer's shelves.
Why do I like the P310?
First, it has manual exposure controls (prorgam, shutter/aperture priority, manual), This gives you maximum flexibility in composing your photos.
Second, it has a fast f/1.8 lens, which rivals even the better grade DSLR lenses. What does this mean? Superior low-light performance, as the camera will gather 2 to 4 times more light than the typical compact camera.
It also does up to 1920x1080p @ 30fps "full" HD with stereo audio. But I am not much into video so that is not something I often use. If I want to do video, I have a camcorder for that.
And I own this camera, so it is not something I would recommend without having some experience with it. While the zoom range of this camera is less than those ridiculously high-powered zooms on bridge cameras, the lens on the P310 is vastly superior to those cameras. So while you won't be able to take a photo of a bird from a mile away, you will be able to take better photos within the range of the P310's zoom.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar