a reply to: bknapple32
What I dont get is how they can put up stunning hd pics like this one:
But then we see the blurry photoshop or even worse on other images.
Yes. That's it precisely. And it's not just there, it's on the moon too. There are images that show quite clearly distinctive lines, ridges and
squared edges from old, 1960s-70s photography, and supposedly with 'high-def' images returned it shows a flat, smeary nothing, like it was swallowed
by the boring landscape.
I ignored this for years just looking at it as any rational person would. You get supposedly better images, see nothing, move on. Im guessing that was
It hit me when I was looking at some amateur astronomy photos, of the moon specifically. They were getting better quality pictures of the bright side
of the moon, from their home set-up rigs. Better than Clementine, Chang-E, etc
Many Apollo shots still had ridge detail which was better than current stuff. Once I saw the amateur pics showing similar it just didn't make sense.
Im guessing their post processing algorithms smooth out ridge detail for public release. It would explain why all of the newer moon pictures look
similar, and look very unnatural. Overly smooth.
Im guessing the nature of landsat mosaics and because of acceptable man-made objects on Earth, there is no 'one size fits all' solution to "fixing"
landsat images. So it has to be done one by one. Either make it blurry, or clone in other areas to cover up what they need to.
Here's the old Geo-Survey, I think circa 2006:
Here's the 'new' uh....'high-res' image:
If it were treated like normal images, they would've stitched in the higher res to the rest of it. You can see if you play with the historical
settings actually, they sometimes stitch in photos taken over 30 year periods and use the best ones.
Keep in mind the this has already been done in the landsat database, and then its done again
by Google. So it should have the best of the best
in there. Obviously it doesn't.
I remember when Google Earth first came out and people found "mysterious" stuff. It was a pretty big thing for awhile. And I even messed around with
it. Then there was some pushback and people tossed a lot of negative responses at those who were investing so much time into. In the meantime,
numerous places have been washed over, made blurry, cloned, removed entirely, etc. Part of me wishes I spent a little more time doing it back in the
Moon example (please ignore the Hoax this is related to-the following images are real):
Near the Descartes crater, this picture was an official photo from Apollo:
In between, I think it was Clementine or another one, they took a "better" pic of it, and it just removed the area the ship was in entirely. Of
course, that didn't fly so they took another "better" one:
And we got this:
I've gone over every publicly available picture related to this area, and it's my strong conviction that the original Apollo images are more
representative of what's in that area. There were distinct features in early Apollo images, which became more defined as newer photos and camera tech
was used (in the set previously mentioned with the 'disappeared' crater) but then the following imaging somehow got worse. Everything was smoothed
over and previously when you'd spot distinctive lines, the newest set (LRO I think?) would just show a smoothed area up close. Doesn't make sense.
Note: People might remember the Descartes pic associated with the Apollo 20 moon hoax. I was happy to point out the hoax and break down everything
that was wrong with that story as it emerged, however...looking back now it doesn't make sense. Is it possible certain information in it was real, and
purposely disseminated as dis-info because they new a leak was imminent or probable? Who knows... All the people related to that hoax evaporated, as
if they were created just for that alone.
edit on 29-6-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)