this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
347 points (91.2% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5742 readers
843 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The difference between spending billions on one camera compared to spending a couple thousand on a full system.
Also, it's much easier to get a high-res image from something immobile.
Also, storing a few high-res images takes a lot less space than storing hours/days/weeks/months of high-res videos.
Not to mention that a lot of companies pay the minimum price needed for a camera for insurance purposes, as insurance is supposed to cover the damages.
They only need to show that a crime was committed, not who committed it.
Also, observing a minuscule area of the sky for days or weeks will produce a much better image than the full field of view for 1/24th of a second in low light.
Not that your point is incorrect, but most security cameras record at a much lower frame rate than 24 fps. 2 or 4 fps are common, and 0.5 exist as well.
The shutter speed of the camera will not be 1/2 or 1/4 of a second however. It will still be taking images with a relatively short shutter speed/angle, otherwise everything would be very blurry.
Yeah that is true.
Those are pretty antique though. You can get full-HD, 60fps security cams. They're just annoying to store data for unless motion sensors are an option. To keep track of a store, that's not a great solution.
Doesn't JWST have to account for its own orbit around L2 and stellar parallax (depending on distance)? I assumed it would have to have some tracking.
True, but those are minute parallax changes, not "entire view angle in 8 seconds".
I have no idea, it just made sense in my head that when you're cropping such a small portion of the picture, any movement would be visible and would probably fuck up data. In my mind the lens(es?) are in constant motion while in use. Itty bitty tiny little movement, but movement.
I mean, there's probably a good reason the JWST costs billion and I can get a camera for 12 bucks. Your questions are probably one of the many reasons.
I think you misspelled 10s of dollars on a system..