New answers tagged photography
4
So, restricting myself to space observations:
No, for several reasons.
I. From an astronomical standpoint, cellphone cameras are terrible imagers. By themselves, they have tiny apertures -- typically 1 or 2 mm in diameter. Larger apertures do two things: improve the maximum possible angular resolution, and gather more light. The resolution scales with the ...
1
This question seems to specifically be about ground observation, but the underlying limitations are the same as those for astronomical imaging.
By combining multiple images, you can do things like:
Reduce sensor noise or interference from ionizing particles hitting the sensor.
Similarly, reject transients such as flashes of reflected sunlight, passing ...
22
If it helps, following the citation trail leads to the back side of the same rock formation being visible on three other photographs on the same reel of film:
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18370HR.jpg
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18350HR.jpg
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18349HR.jpg
Here are cropped views of these:
A ...
answered Oct 4 at 14:02
SE - stop firing the good guys
34.1k2 gold badges107 silver badges199 bronze badges
4
There are two rocks one big one in the back ground and a smaller one slightly closer. Something is casting a very deep shadow across to bottom of both. The deep shadow makes it impossible to see the definition on the edge of the bottom of the smaller rock, so all we can see is it's illuminated top. Because the top of the small rock looks similar to the ...
26
There's a saying, "ask 4 geologists about a geological feature and you'll get 5 or 6 answers, maybe more".
My interpretation of what you have highlighted is not a rock arch - an arched rock formation created by erosion or other means. Instead, it is a rock that has been ejected from a crater during a meteorite impact.
During the impact phase, the ...
Top 50 recent answers are included