On Wednesday 14 June 2006 1:56 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote: > Optics is what it is. That is to say, the closer you are to the > object you wish to observe visually (or photographically), the better > resolution is available. The size of the lens matters, too, but > there's no getting around diffraction-limited resolution, and > satellites will never read newspaper headlines. And they certainly > won't read license plates! (And you can't "redirect" a satellite, TV > shows like "24" notwithstanding.)
I'm well aware of how they work, and even more about optics. ;) > I'm not saying there isn't better satellite imagery than what is > available to the general public, but the fanciful notion that you can > capture as much detail from orbit as you can from a airplane is > absurd and is a reality that exists only in TV and movies (and > paranoid or uncritical minds, I suppose). I've seen some satellite images that you'd find quite astonishing. Fred -- Paid purchaser of ALL SuSE Linux releases since 6.x --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
