Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BenLurkin

...meters per pixel...

Did they mean “pixels per meter” ?


10 posted on 05/28/2015 6:10:33 PM PDT by Blennos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Blennos
Did they mean “pixels per meter” ?

Nope. At these distances, it probably is meters per pixel. Recall that Ceres is about 950 kilometers, or 950,000 Meters in diameter. . . and consider the field of view of the camera. Any thing that gets a portion of the surface would be 1/2 of pi X 950 or 2,984.5/2 or Columbus (grin). . . 1492 kilometers, 1,492,000 meters in the field of view.

The camera on Dawn was made about nine to ten years ago. . . and it's pixel count is not up to the level of modern digital cameras. So "meters per pixel" is correct at this time.

17 posted on 05/28/2015 6:23:20 PM PDT by Swordmaker ( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Blennos
Did they mean “pixels per meter” ?

Oh, and the visible hemisphere would have approximately

567,450,173,000 square meters. Again, yes, meters per pixel.

18 posted on 05/28/2015 6:27:44 PM PDT by Swordmaker ( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Blennos

When you get to fractional pixels per meter, it’s more convenient to use meters per pixel :)


45 posted on 05/29/2015 4:12:55 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson