Celestia Forums

Look at this
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-114
It??s the best view of Hyperion ever.
I don??t understand why no one could do a more detailed texture for this minor moons,because we have 1k textures for Hyperion,Epimetheus,Prometheus,Janus and 2k textures for some asteroids and the Mars moons and no one had complained about the difficult in working in irregular bodies.
Why would be different if someone do 4k textures or higher?The present models are not very accurate,so why don??t create a texture and put in the mesh we already have today?
I wonder if Phil Stooke is doing something about...

danielj wrote:Look at this
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-114
It??s the best view of Hyperion ever.
I don??t understand why no one could do a more detailed texture for this minor moons,because we have 1k textures for Hyperion,Epimetheus,Prometheus,Janus and 2k textures for some asteroids and the Mars moons and no one had complained about the difficult in working in irregular bodies.
Why would be different if someone do 4k textures or higher?The present models are not very accurate,so why don??t create a texture and put in the mesh we already have today?
I wonder if Phil Stooke is doing something about...

Daniel,

you just dont want to understand...

Once more: So far there are only /photos/ of Hyperion, a new official cylindrical map does not exist yet. Hence someone must project each point of this POTATO shape onto the surface of a cylinder. This is a damned difficult problem and requires specialized software. If the shape was about spherical, the respective task is straightforward and just takes time to do. Since right now most people don't have time ( you don't either, RIGHT!?) even that latter task would take a while.

Moreover, since Hyperion is POTATO-shaped, the higher the resolution one wants to do, the more accurately one has to account for these complicating facts.

Finally, what I don't understand at all is why you talk about making a 4k image from the above photo!?? This would be stupid, empty magnification and vasting storage. Just take a measuring tool and you will find that on that new image the largest extension of Hyperion measures 520 pixels. Since there is a front view and a back view, the biggest size cylindrical texture image could come up with 2x520 = 1040 pixels. Blowing this up to 4096 pixels (4K) would be a really bad idea.

Can you follow me?

Bye Fridger

Bigger isn't better if you don't have the data to fill in the pixels.

Yeah. What's on the other side?

Daniel,

you just dont want to understand...

Ah, good doctor... It is you who doesn't understand.

Our friend Daniel simply wants someone to drive out there with a camera and
get the damned photos. Of course some exact measurements, topographical
detail, samples of the material and a nice chemical analysis wouldn't hurt
either!

Ain't that hard to comprehend.

Hee... Hee... Sorry, couldn't resist.
So much for remaining un-noticed.

julesstoop,

Check the video linked from that page and see.

Yes. I've seen it and it's amazing!
But there's nothing there to justify anything more than a 1k (let alone a 4k) texture.