The difference between spending billions on one camera compared to spending a couple thousand on a full system.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
355 points (91.4% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5658 readers
527 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/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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..
Multiple billion $ camera vs 30$ camera
Yeah someone smart should run the $/pixel
The Webb telescope has roughly 54 megapixels of sensors. It cost about 10 billion dollars. So around 185 million dollars per megapixel.
Home Depot has 1080p security cams for about 20 dollars. 1080p is 2.1 megapixels. So about 9.5 dollars per megapixel.
My phone camera has a max resolution setting of 8000x6000 (48MP)
Purchased on sale (black Friday) in Canada. Total payment was 360$CAD. $7.50 /MP
Also have a 2k security camera I was gifted. Retail about 130. $30/MP
Security camera can do night vision and full color night time.
It isn't the megapixels.
It's the sensors.
And things like the optics, the amount of light that it received over how much time, how much post-processing was done (a LOT in the picture on the left)...
Well yeah, that's why this thread is about the dollar amount per megapixel as a general rating, not purely the total amount of megapixels
Billions of dollars spent and not even a single person captured in the photo? What a scam.
Those galaxies are maybe slightly bigger than that dude.
Picture quality is so awful that the guy has to be a few centimeters tall.
Dude’s a garden gnome.
From 10 feet away I was thinking more like...
I think it's also relevant pointing out that the telescope maybe, possibly, perhaps, cost more than the security camera.
Just by a little bit.
You make it sound like Galactus robbed a 7-eleven.
left picture is underestimating the distance by about 2.5 factor
Why won't the robber stand still for 78 hours so we can take a deep field time exposure of him?
The problem with security cameras is that insurance demands them, but does not state a minimum quality. Which is stupid, but obviously they see more profit in security being a theater instead of real stuff to prevent incidents.
So if your contract just demands video cameras at every corner and X days of retaining the video, how much would you invest into high-quality, high-definition cameras and quality-retaining video storage?
You can actually buy "outdoor security cameras" for $10 a piece - or you can buy professional stuff for $500 or more. You can store hours after hours of video footage of 16 cameras on one old, worn-out video tape, or invest tens of thousands in disk arrays to store high-resolution video streams. Guess what businesses do when the only requirement is to "have a video surveillance system".
Clearly the optics involved are different…
I don't know if it's just me, but I can't even tell how many limbs the creatures in the left image have, even after zooming in.
If the situation were reversed...
Man doesn't the world suck you guys? We've got all this money for high res cameras to defend capital, but hardly any pixels dedicated towards the advancement of humankind.