Coming Soon: Hi Res Colorblind Mars Images

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I suggest you read these:

SCI/TECH: What Color Is Mars, Really?
EXCLUSIVE: NASA Is Not Altering Mars Colors.

I had read them because, as you can see in the links in my original post, I was the first one on the web to post about the color problems.

NASA was not altering the color, they were instead creating representative color images from the narrowband L256 filters.

Neither the rovers, nor the cam being discussed in this thread are capable of making true RGB images.

Color images can be made with anything, but its not true color unless the SOURCE is the same as the RGB output on your monitor.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Maldives, I think I figured out how to address the problem you're discussing.

The problem is that raw data is not in JPEG format, it's in a text format.

It's a long chain of 1s and 0s.

They use .PDS format.

A PDS image is stored as a binary array with a plain-text PDS label either embedded at the beginning of the file or in a separate file. The label has all the information needed to enable image display programs to read and display the image. NASAVIew is a free program from PDS that will display a PDS-labeled image. PDS deliberately does not use any commercial or proprietary formats to archive image data, in order to ensure the long-term viability of the data.

NASA

Recently, because of the data load, NASA has been converting their raw data into a JPEG format before sending to Earth...this has problems in its own right but they feel they can work around them.

The problem is that JPEG formats are compressed files, this loses data.

That's why whenever you make a Bitmap into a JPEG and then the JPEG back into a Bitmap you have lost a LARGE amount of information.

Bitmaps are non-compressed and are usually used for Data Analysis.

So are TIFFs and etc.

They are using a proprietary compression system, and I don't believe they release the details of exactly how it works.

The end result is PDS data which is converted to .JPG for posting at NASAs web site.

The higher quality PDS data is only available on DVD, or from password protected servers.

As I said in your other post on this same subject. Why is this a big deal? Why are you getting all worked up about this? So what if it's false colour? Every single photo taken in space or on other planets for the past few decades has been false colour. They choose there filters for scientific reasons, not for artistic ones. A true colour image isn't going to show scientists what they want/need to see.

For example i've seen photos taken of a forest from above. In the colour photo you just see a bunch of tree all roughly the same colour. In the infrared photo, you can see that some of the trees are darker then others. This showed which trees were sick and which wern't.

Why is this a big deal?

Honesty.

Disclosure.

NASA will present the images as color when they are a representation not based on RGB data.

If it does not matter to you then why even post in this thread?

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Why is this a big deal?

Honesty.

Disclosure.

NASA will present the images as color when they are a representation not based on RGB data.

When has NASA not been honest about the photos? Every single one that's in colour will say that it's "false colour" or "approximate true-color". They are very open and upfront about it. They arn't hidding it from anyone, this is why I don't understand your fuss over this.

If it does not matter to you then why even post in this thread?

Because i'm trying to understand why you have a problem with this.



[edit on 17-2-2006 by jra]

When has NASA not been honest about the photos? Every single one that's in colour will say that it's "false colour". They are very open and upfront about it. They arn't hidding it from anyone, this is why I don't understand your fuss over this.

I'll be sure to bring it up when images start coming in.

We'll soon see if you are right.

Have you researched any?

The best person I have seen do this work is KeithLaney:


www.keithlaney.net...

His images from the MOC were used by NASA AMES for the rover landing site selection process. He has many color rover images that are as true to 'true color' as you can get.

I usually use just L2, L5 L7 bands for quick RGBs on selected rover spots that I find mind have interesting artifacts laying around.

Interestingly enough, it was Keith who recently pointed out INTENTIONAL blurring with the rover images:




his coments down near bottom 1st page in this thread:

www.keithlaney.net...

NASA/JPL HAS altered data in the past. The April 1998 'Catbox' is just the first of the more recent examples concerning Mars itself.

There are things are Mars that NASA just can't close the books on and no matter how they try...anomalies keep cropping up and you can't blur a whole planet forever.

Bob...

His images from the MOC were used by NASA AMES for the rover landing site selection process. He has many color rover images that are as true to 'true color' as you can get.

As you can get with the Pancam.

Which is far from RGB.

Even using L456 there are still huge gaps in the spectrum.

Much of the color detail is simply missing creating in an odd colorblind result.

I usually use just L2, L5 L7 bands for quick RGBs on selected rover spots that I find mind have interesting artifacts laying around.

All filter combinations will reveal different things.

But of course your red is replaced with infrared, and you blue is replaced with ultraviolet.

L257 is even further from being true color than the L256 NASA images.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
All filter combinations will reveal different things.

But of course your red is replaced with infrared, and you blue is replaced with ultraviolet.

L257 is even further from being true color than the L256 NASA images.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by ArchAngel]

I agree but if you check the raw jpgs nearly every day the FIRST posted set they download are the L2L5L7 along with R1 which is infrared as we know.

As I stated I think Keith Laney does excellent work, A fellow named Holger Isenberg has a site that makes his 'true color' a bit differntly and also AUTOMATICALLY each and every sol. Trouble with his method is that not ALL necessary filters are aquired by the rovers to make color images for each spot they stop and decide to take a set of images of any particular spot along the way. His automatic color for each sol is:

mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de...

I doubt there is any real way to uniformly get true color with these rovers and contrast has to be adjusted from results because high sun images are brighter than low sun ones. That alone can change the colors and also effect the ccds of each filter either L or R.

As even Dr Malin says we'll need boots on the ground before any FINAL answers are accepted across the spectrum of questions that the enigmatic Martian landscape presents us.

www.space.com...
"This story, I don't believe, will be answered until someone goes with a pick and shovel to actually chip away at the landforms, Malin said."


And unfortuately I don't think Bush's Moon-Mars Vision will get us there. Like his father's...this one will wither away as the years drag on and we keep repeating the same mistakes decade after decade.

Bob...

Originally posted by ArchAngel
They went and did it again.

NASA sent a colorblind camera all the way to Mars.

And so, once again, we all have to explain to you how things work...

1. The visible light goes from 400nm to 800nm. In the graph you posted the light used by the camera goes from 400nm to 1000nm, so we are not missing anything.

2. We do not see in RGB. Your fixation with RGB starts to sound monotonous.

3. They were granted the money to do what they wanted, so they have done it. If you want to complain, write to NASA or to your congress(man/woman).

Originally posted by ArMaP

And so, once again, we all have to explain to you how things work...

1. The visible light goes from 400nm to 800nm. In the graph you posted the light used by the camera goes from 400nm to 1000nm, so we are not missing anything.

Only two of the filters are in the range of human sight.

How do you suppose to make a color image with only two filters?

Please, come and explain it all to us seeing how you think you know.

2. We do not see in RGB. Your fixation with RGB starts to sound monotonous.

Your eyes DO see in RGB, and more importantly your Monitor outputs in RGB.

IF the output is RGB then the input must be RGB in order for it to be true color.

Any color cam in the world does a better job of making color pictures.

3. They were granted the money to do what they wanted, so they have done it. If you want to complain, write to NASA or to your congress(man/woman).

I already have.....

Are you asking me to not post about it here?

I refuse!

Originally posted by ArMaP
3. They were granted the money to do what they wanted, so they have done it. If you want to complain, write to NASA or to your congress(man/woman).

Trouble also comes when they intentionally blur images like I posted above doing similar shennanigans as the April 1998 'Catbox' released by JPL.

Congress is as inept in changing things as this administration is in getting us the truth or us out of Iraq and complaining falls on deaf ears, unless you 'buy' your congressional time.

Bob...

Originally posted by rhw007
Trouble also comes when they intentionally blur images like I posted above

The image you posted looks very heavily .jpg'd, not blurred. I'd like to see the original stright from NASA.

Originally posted by jra
The image you posted looks very heavily .jpg'd, not blurred. I'd like to see the original stright from NASA.

Agreed. The originals from NASA are in uncompressed format, normally a TIF, I believe. Going from that to a JPG is going to cause A LOT of compression.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by jra
The image you posted looks very heavily .jpg'd, not blurred. I'd like to see the original stright from NASA.

Agreed. The originals from NASA are in uncompressed format, normally a TIF, I believe. Going from that to a JPG is going to cause A LOT of compression.

They use PDS format.

NASA

A PDS image is stored as a binary array with a plain-text PDS label either embedded at the beginning of the file or in a separate file. The label has all the information needed to enable image display programs to read and display the image. [url=http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/software_download.cfm]NASAVIew is a free program from PDS that will display a PDS-labeled image[/img]. PDS deliberately does not use any commercial or proprietary formats to archive image data, in order to ensure the long-term viability of the data.

They are converted to JPG for the public images available on their servers, and the PDS format images are on a password protected server, or on DVD.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
They use PDS format.

But we're talking about the publicly availible images on the site. Which are usually a low res and high res jpg and a high res tiff.

I have also found the image on the NASA rover site. It too is heavily jpg'd and no option for a high res tiff sadly. It's defiantely not blurred, just the unfortunate effect of too much jpg compression. marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

There has to be an uncompressed one somewhere though.

EDIT: Although since this image was taken with the NAV cam. They might not have as high res images from it as they would with the other cameras. Since it's only used for navigating the rover.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by jra]

It is possible to produce true color Mars images with rover imagery...you need to calibrate the images and I'm not sure if you need to convert the data using their logarithms which I could give to you on my other computer...but if you do, then they've got a program that does it.

Anyway...

I found a better way to explain why you must calibrate your image.

The human brain calibrates all our sight, so you don't see the effect when looking at two different light conditions...

A Digital camera automatically corrects for "white balance"and so you usually don't see the discrepancy...but it's not very accurate.

So if you want to see the effect, force your camera to filter for one light condition, say out doors...you take a picture on a cloudy day and the image may be bluish...take a picture in doors and the image will be greenish.

On the Mars rovers rather than automatically correcting (because we haven't experienced the conditions there ourselves) they use a calibration target to manually calibrate the image.

Is this clear?

Yes...they can make true color photographs with the spectrum availability they have.

It is possible to produce true color Mars images with rover imagery...you need to calibrate the images and I'm not sure if you need to convert the data using their logarithms which I could give to you on my other computer...but if you do, then they've got a program that does it.

Thats not true.

You can create decent looking representative color images, but the holes between the filters make it impossible to create true color.

Not all of the color data is there, and its not even being taken from RGB.

NASA used L256 for its color images, not L456, but even that misses almost half of the RGB range.



If you cannot see all of the colors you are colorblind.

I have been speding some time studying Mars pictures..
It's as simpel as using photoshop... Putting the red green and blue together..
And offcourse they use more filter than those 3.

One thing i found out - looking through weird pages - looking for the Red green and blue pictures... Is the all the panorama pictures - don't have RED GREEN & Blue..
Only when the camera is filming the joystick-color-caliberator thing - with the LEGO logo on it - has all the filters intact.

Why is it - when camera film the skies - Somehow it is not nessesary to include all the filters - ? You only get the panorama views in Black & White... 2 filters. Is it cause - we don't need to see the skies - cause we really just need the DATA. If you really need to find minerals - You need a LAB!! In a sterile box.
And if Mars is brown and full of poison - Then why the hell/heck are we wasting time - studying Mars? And even considering going there..?

Do ya really think they want to goto Mars to Terraform it..?? Christ! We can't even control our own enviroment here on Earth... We are banging the RainForrest for christ sake!
Can't you see!? they are slipping out small amounts of information as possible possibly. Oh and now they found Ice -ESA made a nice color picuture again - And now they talk about salt...
When it's all clear in the pictures that there is weet sand on the ground - You still think it's 1.000.000 year old signs of water? Oh no - Cause ESA - And NASA tells us..blah blah blah. They just found out new stuff... There might be underground frozen water...

You know they have a desk - where they have all the information allready... And they just let stuff out when things get a little to hard to hide anymore. (i agree with that myself - thanx Ram - your welcome)

And those sticky Blueberries - Those round balls - are sticking to the rocks - cause of salt and water... And they are round cause of the wind.. When stuff blows around - it's turning round - like small balls..


And howcome - when im in photoshop - When i want to pick a color - and change it's value a little tiny bit less RED - The skies turn blue - in the Brown-Mars pictures?
And while one can turn the skies blue in photoshop (in the BROWN-MARS-PICUTRES) suddently -


some blue mineral turns up on the rocks... Looking like sulfat..

Sulfat has something to do with Salt... Salt is something that is in oceans around our planet... And Mars sure is missing some Oceans - and Marine-lifeforms...And that makes the skies Blue...On my computer.

But you know - im just a fool... Like many other people who is about to explode cause of all this ignorance...

Try do - like the conspiracy nuts - Look at a case from many angels instead of one only - and only one...
But i think that is out of the question - cause you know... If Mars has Blue skies - you sure are gonna make some adjustments to your view of life.. And it would destroy the nice and sterile picture...

Yea - you better stay inside the box - instead of making a fool of yourself like i do...

Heck! - look at it like this - As an civilian person - We explore Mars Through NASA and ESA JPL . And msss.com... We aint the the people who has all the gear...
And if you belive that there is no lies in THIS WORLD - Then wake up!! LOL*

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Only two of the filters are in the range of human sight.

How do you suppose to make a color image with only two filters?

Please, come and explain it all to us seeing how you think you know.

A filter is a way of limiting what passes through it, in this case, light.

If it was only one filter, ranging from 400nm to 800nm, it would let through all of what we call visible light.

If two filters are used, say one from 400nm to 600nm and other from 600nm to 800nm, the combination of the two filters is the same as one filter for all.

See it like this:
You have a building with one door with free access, independent of age. Through this door any one can enter.

Another building has 3 doors: one for people with 20 years or less, another for people above 20 and bellow 40 years, and the third for people 40 or above.

In this building also all people can enter, they only do that by different ways.

In the image you posted, you can see that there is a continuous line from 400nm to 1000nm, meaning that all the visible light can pass trough the sum of the filters.

Obviously, if you only show what one filter saw, you can not have true colour.

Your eyes DO see in RGB, and more importantly your Monitor outputs in RGB.

IF the output is RGB then the input must be RGB in order for it to be true color.

Any color cam in the world does a better job of making color pictures.

No, we do not see in RGB.

From the Wikipedia:

The three kinds of cones typically respond most to yellowish-green (long wavelength or L), bluish-green (medium or M), and blue-violetish (short or S) light (peak wavelengths of 564 nm, 534 nm, and 420 nm respectively). The difference in the signals received from the three kinds allows the brain to perceive a wide range (gamut) of different colors.

Also, RGB does not represent true colour, only a limited rang, as you can see in the following link.

RGB colour gamut

Also, the colours you see in a CRT monitor are different from those you can see in a LCD monitor.

But maybe you mean "true colour" as defined by Microsoft Windows display drivers? In that case you are limited to 256*256*256=16777216 different colours (or 65536*65536*65536=281474976710656 if your drivers and monitor can display 16bit channels).

Your eyes can (maybe, see * below) see more colours, or at least they can see more gradations of colours that your monitor can show.

Even in a 16bit per channel monitor, display card and drivers you can "only" have 65536 different levels of Red, Green and Blue, but it is very common for people to be able to see more than that, at least for some colours.

*But this is if you can see as well as the average person, it is impossible for a person to know how the others see colours without making tests.
Some people are blind to some colours all their lives and never notice that.

I already have.....

Are you asking me to not post about it here?

I refuse!

If I wanted to ask you to not post about it here, I would have said that.

But that is something I would never do, your freedom to post what you want here is none of my business, unless it interferes with my freedom, in the same way as my freedom to post what I want stops when it interferes with anyone else’s freedoms or the terms of use of this site.

Also, in your post, you did not say that you had complained to the authorities, so how could I know?