rdonson
Premium Pilot
Longer (6mm & 8mm) PixAero Lenses Now Available!
- Thread starter Eagle's Eye Video
- Start date
I'm confused. The HDMI port is on the ST16 and that comes via WiFi from the CGO3+. Wouldn't that be a 720p image?
exact, but even in 720p, we manage to take stock. Then confirm by looking at the 4k of the micro sd. The human eye is fantastic.
OK.
Yes, no one appreciates how fantastic the human eye is more than photographers.
As a photographer I have a lot of very expensive Zeiss lenses and Sony/Canon cameras and not one even come close to capturing images better than the human eye!
rdonson
Premium Pilot
It's not just the eye but also the brain. Our brain provides the perception. There are also plenty of examples of our brain deceiving us. Optical illusions, visual phenomena, etc.
Photography and videography are our attempts to create devices based on what we've learned about the eye and the brain. Sensors are constructed based on what we know about the eye - iris, lens, rods, cones, etc. We then pass what the sensors have quantified to the processor for interpretation.
I have many lenses better than my eyes. Macro lenses, telephoto lenses, super telephoto lenses, etc. None of my lenses are nearsighted or suffer from astigmatism, cataracts, etc.
Still, the eye is amazing.
Photography and videography are our attempts to create devices based on what we've learned about the eye and the brain. Sensors are constructed based on what we know about the eye - iris, lens, rods, cones, etc. We then pass what the sensors have quantified to the processor for interpretation.
I have many lenses better than my eyes. Macro lenses, telephoto lenses, super telephoto lenses, etc. None of my lenses are nearsighted or suffer from astigmatism, cataracts, etc.
Still, the eye is amazing.
And do not forget to make a fixed shot before changing the lens. No need to fly, but the same frame and the same sun if possible, at the same time. For example on the edge of a window with an outside view. This makes it possible to compare the lenses. The next flight will see if the vibrations are not present with this new focal length.
And do not forget to make a fixed shot before changing the lens. No need to fly, but the same frame and the same sun if possible, at the same time. For example on the edge of a window with an outside view. This makes it possible to compare the lenses. The next flight will see if the vibrations are not present with this new focal length.
Also consider experimenting with different dampeners... CGO3+, CGO3... I'll also be trying to get a set of dampeners for the E50, to see if they can fit... if memory serves me, those are gel filled.
rdonson
Premium Pilot
Don't tell that to the mirror designers of Hubble...
I don't use mirror reflector (Cassegrain) lenses. Also all my lenses are tested on earth. The Hubble defect couldn't be detected until it was in space. My lenses are also limited to visible light. As an earth based photog life is a whole lot simpler.
rdonson
Premium Pilot
It wasn't a problem of imperial vs metric as it was with one of the Mars shots.
"A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established to determine how the error could have arisen. The Allen Commission found that a reflective null corrector, a testing device used to achieve a properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position by 1.3 mm (0.051 in).[64] During the initial grinding and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed its surface with two conventional refractive null correctors. However, for the final manufacturing step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly of the device resulted in the mirror being ground very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final tests, using the conventional null correctors, correctly reported spherical aberration. But these results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity to catch the error, because the reflective null corrector was considered more accurate.[65]
The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer. Relations between NASA and the optics company had been severely strained during the telescope construction, due to frequent schedule slippage and cost overruns. NASA found that Perkin-Elmer did not review or supervise the mirror construction adequately, did not assign its best optical scientists to the project (as it had for the prototype), and in particular did not involve the optical designers in the construction and verification of the mirror. While the commission heavily criticized Perkin-Elmer for these managerial failings, NASA was also criticized for not picking up on the quality control shortcomings, such as relying totally on test results from a single instrument.[66]"
"A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established to determine how the error could have arisen. The Allen Commission found that a reflective null corrector, a testing device used to achieve a properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position by 1.3 mm (0.051 in).[64] During the initial grinding and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed its surface with two conventional refractive null correctors. However, for the final manufacturing step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly of the device resulted in the mirror being ground very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final tests, using the conventional null correctors, correctly reported spherical aberration. But these results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity to catch the error, because the reflective null corrector was considered more accurate.[65]
The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer. Relations between NASA and the optics company had been severely strained during the telescope construction, due to frequent schedule slippage and cost overruns. NASA found that Perkin-Elmer did not review or supervise the mirror construction adequately, did not assign its best optical scientists to the project (as it had for the prototype), and in particular did not involve the optical designers in the construction and verification of the mirror. While the commission heavily criticized Perkin-Elmer for these managerial failings, NASA was also criticized for not picking up on the quality control shortcomings, such as relying totally on test results from a single instrument.[66]"
rdonson
Premium Pilot
BTW, most things in photography is oriented to metric. Not everything but most.
1.3mm??? That's a huge error on precision optical assembly! I hope to do a bit better than that while assembling my 6mm lens.
PatR
Premium Pilot
BTW, most things in photography is oriented to metric. Not everything but most.
The use of metric dimensioning is a standard used world wide for engineering/scientific research and product design. Using a base 10 standard is much simpler, and frequently more accurate, than other methods. Although I was born into Imperial measurement standards there have been many instances where metric has proven itself to provide greater function.
Before shots/video from the stock camera and after shot at the same places with the new lens. I am very interested the difference in "zoom" of the new lens.
I'll see what I can do. The weather is poor at the present and I had intended to have the lens fitted soon. I bought three cheap CGO3+ and this is the worst of the lot. The lens really is quite poor and I can see why some have complained about the quality. The best is almost as good as my Pixaero 3.77mm, although there is a colour tint.
