Survelliance - Page 2

afterburn 549 · 03-14-2009, 03:34 PM

That's what the USA used to use ..the SR71 , and there was one B4 that....maybe they do not need them any more ??

sammyg2 · 03-14-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

All of that high technology and billions of dollars and we still can't (or maybe won't?) find one diaperhead living in NW Pakistan. Brilliant!

It's not a diaper, or a towel. It's actually more like a sheet.
IMO we should refer to him as a sheet-head.

Whtnkls911 · 03-14-2009, 05:30 PM

Check this out....

Photographer David Bergman made a massive composite 1,474
megapixel photograph of the Inaugural audience at the moment
Barack Obama gave his address.

You can zoom in on any point in the crowd and see clear faces. This
is the technology the CIA has.
http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee8994966 48c2b4b06233c
=2 0

sammyg2 · 03-14-2009, 05:33 PM

IMO there are a couple of reasons we developed and use s many drones, even before they carried weapons. One is that are very maneuverable. The other is that they have a great deal more resolution and provide more details that a satellite would.
Plus seeing from the side gives a better view than from straight down.

I don't believe the stuff about being able to count the dimples on a golf ball from space is real.

fingpilot · 03-14-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyl

I think you can infer the capability of our spy satellites from our results. If we could accurately recognize facial features from space, certain people would not be still alive, and yet they still are.

All math aside, this IS the truth of the matter.

When OBL disappeared into his caves in our allies' countries of AfGhani-Paki, he spent a few days recording future releases. Then he was cut up and fed to a couple of camels.

They knew it would drive us nuts looking for him. And it has.

masraum · 03-14-2009, 06:35 PM

I suspect there are planes these days that don't seem exciting but do a lot from a high altitude, but not nearly as high as LEO satellites.

Pazuzu · 03-14-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb

Mike did not discuss image enhancement techniques...

It's information theory...you cannot make something appear in the image that is not in the datastream. Image enhancement is no where near what is shown on TV.

I'll give them some SERIOUS leeway here, and say that the military might be able to have a 1 inch resolution at the surface of the Earth. That's using the best technology, AND actively adaptive optics, AND a low orbit, AND taking sub-second images. Again, that simply means that under idea contrast, they could tell 2 dots 1 inch apart (it looks like an oval instead of a circle, it does NOT look like 2 dots...but that oval is considered "resolved").

This precludes facial recognition, as well as imaging license plates and newspapers.

As for planes...they couldn't do adaptive optical systems on a plane, I'd put plane based imaging as LOWER that "ideal" satellite imaging right now.

RWebb · RWebb's Garage

you are dead wrong about that

Pazuzu · 03-14-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstar

Mike:

AFAIK, there at least three known "Hubble class" telescopes which are adapted to look down, not up - below says ground resolution is "probably 6 inches or better."

Yes, they exist (but, the 6 inch resolution referenced seems vaguely familiar to something I posted...in this very thread...

)

I worked on a black (eh, maybe gray) project before I left Arizona. It was essentially a big telescope, built in a BIG vacuum chamber. Imaging satellites could be put in there, and the "telescope" would feed them images. It was to test the capabilities of the satellites. Our equipment had to be as good as or better than their satellites, or the testing would be useless.

The requirements were severe, but "they" came to us, because we could build it without much issue. The military isn't using magic, and their imagers still have to follow the same basic laws of Fourier optics.

Pazuzu · 03-14-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb

you are dead wrong about that

Which part?

stealthn · 03-15-2009, 06:29 AM

Yes there is and they can but it costs a lot to re-task them.

I'm sure they get enough info just reading your email and listening to your phone calls though ;D

KFC911 · 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg2

It's not a diaper, or a towel. It's actually more like a sheet.
IMO we should refer to him as a sheet-head.

...now that's funny!

Zeke · 03-15-2009, 07:44 AM

What do you mean they can't find Osama. He's at the inauguration!

charleskieffner · 03-15-2009, 09:00 AM

"they" are in your cereal! and "they" is watching your every move!

RWebb · RWebb's Garage

this part:

"you cannot make something appear in the image that is not in the datastream."

in fact, one of the problems is the 'creation' or 'finding' of artifacts -- they are generated from the data - sure

but they are not real

this is common to all image analysis systems, biological ones too (esp. since some image construction is based on what we know about how vertebrates & in-verts. process visual inputs)

a simpler approach that will generate higher res. is to time average over images -- assuming the object is stationary or can be tracked in the image, you can remove some of the issues arising from heat waves, Johnson & other noise n the sensor, & etc.

I am not claiming magic here of course.

Pazuzu · 03-15-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb

this part:

"you cannot make something appear in the image that is not in the datastream."

in fact, one of the problems is the 'creation' or 'finding' of artifacts -- they are generated from the data - sure

but they are not real

That's just being stupid. I'm quite sure that EVERYONE, including you, knew that I very specifically meant that you cannot get information out of a data stream that is not there. I was not talking about creating artifacts and noise, and only a real idiot would think I was.

Are you an idiot?

You cannot get the details of a human face out of an image that has 1 inch resolution, PERIOD. It is impossible by all the rules of physics. Even knowing the general structure of the human face, and using a complex, hand-made deconvolution mask would not give you that information.

PERIOD. And everyone knew what I was talking about, so you can take your "dead wrong" attitude and shove it.

RWebb · RWebb's Garage

you seem hyper excited.

afterburn 549 · 03-15-2009, 03:07 PM

Why does everyone have to act all pissed all the time ? If we were in the bar having a drink ..I do not suspect the words that come across these pages to ever pass the tongues door

KFC911 · 03-15-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

Why does everyone have to act all pissed all the time ? If we were in the bar having a drink ..I do not suspect the words that come across these pages to ever pass the tongues door

Sign's posted all around a bar/restaurant I used to go to: "Be nice or leave"

. I don't "get it" either...life's too short.

kstar · 03-16-2009, 07:52 PM

This solves a lot of problems:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spyblimp13-2009mar13,0,4608400.story