I thought that there was a Juno Web site gallery of 4K images, but upon looking for it again, I think that menu item might actually apply to NASA HQ. Sloppy web design [sniff].

"HD" once had a technical meaning, but it's a marketing term now. Generally we're talking displays in multiples of 720x480 pixels. To me, "real HD" is 1920x1080. "4K: is the next step up @ 3840x2160, which produces amazing "photorealistic" pictures based on store demos I've seen.

But darn, 1600x1200, that's disappointing...on the surface. But don't overlook the ability of JPL's imaging boffins. Consider this: The spacecraft is spin-stabilized at 3 RPM, plus there's its orbital motion around Jupiter. Any time a camera pans across the scene, you have the opportunity to synthesize higher-resolution images out of successive images a fraction of a pixel shifted. Plus, image size in the direction of spin is effective unlimited, depending on how long you keep the shutter open and how efficiently you move partial images out of the buffer. It's possible we'll see long skinny images like Mars Global Surveyor, with better resolution on one axis than the other.

Not sure of the FOV discrepancy, but that sure doesn't sound close to the 4:3 ratio of the imager. Something's off. In any case, resolution of 15km/pixel, about 9 times better than Hubble, will be nice. I'm sure of it.

Maybe my excuse for upgrading displays is a mirage, but I still look forward to those images of Jupiter. Thanks for researching the camera.