Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Craig20264, May 18, 2020.
Two photos of Pluto taken 25 years apart. (1994 and 2019)
Nice example, I like that. Yes pixels matter. You can always reduce resolution but there is something magic in exploring ever more detail.
Come on, one was Hubble and the other a FLY BY of the planet no comparison
I'm reasonably confident Craig knows that.
But then it isn't comparing like pixels have 0 to do with it
Perhaps better would be
"Look how times have changed"
I'll message a moderator to see about getting the title changed. I apologise profusely to anyone I may have offended.
Don’t worry about it. It might be apples vs pears but interesting nonetheless the difference time has made to our capability.
I don't think Craig is that worried Pete. I think he may have been taking the mick about getting the title changed!
I've often wondered - How may pixels does it take to make a recognizable face, I mean sufficiently recognizable to identify the person? Does anyone know?
The comparison would me more meaningful if both shots were taken from the same place with the same lens, so that the difference was only down to the sensor resolution.
At least the 'fly by' image is still beyond the wealth of all the 'pay and display' APOY entrants (I received my latest AP today).
In summary, the required pixel resolution is:
Identification of a person that you know – 80 pixels/ft.
Forensic identification of a person you don’t know – 160 pixels/ft.
Best identification when there are poor conditions – 180 pixels/ft.
Marketing blurb so take it at face value (hahahahahah see what I did there)
Amazing. I hadn’t realised that you could identify people by their feet alone.
Footprints/fingerprints, they'll get you...
Unexpectedly useful site - thanks Tony.
Ears too, allegedly...
Separate names with a comma.