Well, you were the one telling me "space tech evolves slowly", when Apollo was taking their pictures with a film coconut, Firefly is using a digital apple, and yet the output still looks eerily similar.
Hopefully you can see that from a raw tech level, there's practically no overlap between those things at all. The technology has moved on _completely_.
I'm familiar with the Mariner camera. It's pretty fascinating. There obviously no way to return film from a Mars flyby, so they had to take a digital approach. But the technology was so crude in 1965 that they literally had to paint the "digital" images by hand in order to get a visual output. It's a fascinating story.
Suffice it to say that this technique has essentially no relation to today's digital cameras, apart from using electrons or something. The Apollo missions did not use digital cameras; they used film, which could produce superb high-resolution images, provided you could return it to Earth.
You can actually learn things in this forum, if you listen to people who know what they're talking about.
You simply dumped me with the inane digital / analog hint. Like I missed that transition. Excuse me? YOU started to talk about analog photography, just to make me look like an idiot.
Just saying it uses digital photography doesn't give me any clue. Is the tech bleeding edge or 20 years old?
My initial argument was that it takes time to add new tech to space flight, due to radiation concerns. Your argument is that they use digital tech now. Which doesn't disprove my point, nor does it point out any mistakes I made.
