For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1859887
Mike Tango wrote:I find it quietly amusing that we've gone from a time of Galileo being ostracised to a time of arguing about the quality of imaging following a close flyby of a spacecraft past an object some 365 million miles away.


The technological achievements for capturing these images is incredible, and shows the best of mankind. Of course other parts of mankind are not quite so "advanced". Not specifically referencing the Football thread...
User avatar
By Morten
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1859889
stevelup wrote:I can't help noticing stuff like this - makes me very irritating...

I'm sure you meant irritated? :lol: Although you could be right! :thumright:

Back to your point, a 1 km deep crater, rift or mountain on a sphere which is not that much smaller than the earth is difficult to see. Equivalent to the dimples on an orange. With a periapsis of around 1,000 km...
User avatar
By stevelup
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1859924
No, I know I'm irritating - I used the right word...

I'm sorry, but it simply wouldn't look anything like it does in the rendering - which makes it a poor rendering.

All they needed to do was add a bump map using the image data. I'm not saying they needed to use actual elevation data... but neither the shadow line, nor the 'horizon' for want of a better word would be completely smooth like it is in the rendering.

It -immediately- jumped out at me. Within seconds I said to myself 'that's a bit Carp'. It's not like I went looking for trouble!
Morten liked this