gwarrr

If you'd elaborate on that I would probably try.

would be happy if someone would explain or differentiate "not exactly true"

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.

you are talking about stills. still don't know what the actual tech difference is.

What is the point? Are we comparing coconuts and apples?

The paper is 12 years old. If there haven't been other methods to evaluate modern commercial tech, then it's an actual proof of tech evolving slowly due to radiation concerns. Even the process pointed out in the paper requires resources, but it just got a bit faster in the last years.

Apart from that, adding new components is also costly. You just don't order a random megapixel camera from alibaba and slam it on your 1bn space project.

Considering I made clear that i am no expert and my claims were under that context your response was simply arrogant and not helpful.

I am no expert, but to my knowledge the space flight tech evolves very slowly, if at all. One reason for that is that modern tech is supposedly too sensitive to radiation. So you want to balance what's worthwhile to upgrade, and fancy videos are probably low on that list.