It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
They used visible light images for the natural color. It's no different than taking a pic with your 35mm as far as the natural aspect is concerned. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this. They know the electromagnetic range of visible light. Goodgrief.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

As to the color issue... on page one of the thread I posted a beautiful image of Aristarchus Crater in all its Blue Glowing Glory taken from Nearside.tiff... immediately after I posted a second image of that crater taken by an independent source ON EARTH with a relatively small telescope in normal color... this one Also shows the same Blue Glowing Crater, and in my opinion better than the satellite clip from the .tiff.

SAME BLUE COLOR. I also mentioned the Apollo 11 mission log where the Astronauts discuss the unexpected brightness and the "fluorescence" of the Crater Aristarchus and surrounding area and it was in their mission plans to specifically look at that issue



That IMO doesn't show or evidence anything.

Is it not true that Aristarchus Crater is the brightest large formation on the Moon?

If it reflects that much light its going to be bright in false color or true color. That doesn't mean that the USGS "processed" images from Clementine are not "false color". IMO failing to admit this or "skirt" this issue is disingenuous.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
For a better understanding of natural vs. true vs. false color images please review the information and images at this link…

CLEMENTINE VIEW OF THE APOLLO 16 LANDING SITE

www.lpi.usra.edu...

"The Moon's natural color is a faint red/brown. The blue tint seen in the Descartes mountains is the result of fresh ejecta from the crater Dollond E. Fresh crater ejecta is typically blue because it has not hand enough time to develop large amounts of iron-rich, red glass (agglutinates)"

Also note this description here…

www.lpi.usra.edu...


Clementine's imaging cameras are similar to LANDSAT multispectral data for Earth. Both measure reflected solar radiation, and both acquire data through several different bandpasses (filters). Each bandpass was carefully selected to cover parts of the spectrum for which surface materials exhibit known variations. In the case of Clementine, filters were assigned to observe areas in the visible and near-infrared spectrum that are sensitive to variations in bulk mineralogy (principally the abundance of iron-bearing silicates) and the cumulative amount of soil maturity.

Here’s the 11 spectral bands that Clemetine’s cameras covered…



Note that the images on the PDS MAP-A-PLANET present images that include FIVE of these spectral bands (not THREE as in the nearly “true” color RGB image at the above link) when you select the “Abledo (Natural Color)” option data set…

pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov...


Clementine UltraViolet-Visible (UVVIS) 5-band Mosaic This multi-spectral lunar DIM is a radiometrically and geometrically controlled, photometrically modeled global image mosaic compiled using more than 400,000 images from multiple filter observations of the Ultraviolet/Visible (UVVIS) camera onboard the Clementine Spacecraft. The DIM mosaic is mapped in the Sinusoidal Equal-Area projection at a resolution of 100 meters per pixel. Five spectral bands are presented at 415, 750, 900, 950, 1000 nm wavelengths.

This is NOT “true” color as it includes other filtered spectral bands normally not present in a typical "color" photo but by the same token it is NOT to be confused with the “false” color data set option described as follows…


The Clementine Ratio or Clementine false color views of the Moon are created by ratioing 3 of 5 UVVIS wavelengths and combining these into a red-green-blue color image: Red=750 nm/415 nm, Green=750 nm/950 nm, Blue=414 nm/750 nm. The color ratio rendition serves to cancel out the dominant brightness variations of the scene (controlled by albedo variations and topographic shading) and enhances color differences related to soil mineralogy and maturity. The lunar highlands, mostly old (~4.5 b.y.) gabbroic anorthosite rocks, are depicted in shades of red (old) and blue (younger). The lunar maria (~3.9 to ~1 b.y.), mostly iron-rich basaltic materials of variable titanium contents, are portrayed in shades of yellow/orange (iron-rich, low titanium) and blue (iron-rich, higher titanium). Superimposed on and intermingled with these basic units are materials from basins and craters of various ages, ranging from the dark reds and blues of ancient basins to the bright blue crater rays of younger craters.

Also, somebody asked about what Copernicus crater looks like using The PDS site. To find it go to the “Advanced” page here…

pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov...

Just enter a CENTER LONGITUDE of 9.7 degrees and a CENTER LONGITUDE of (minus) -20 degrees, click “SUBMIT” and VIOLA!


Anway, I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. Thie point is this is not your father's 35mm camera.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

They used visible light images for the natural color. It's no different than taking a pic with your 35mm as far as the natural aspect is concerned. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this. They know the electromagnetic range of visible light. Goodgrief.



Yeah, that's exactly what I'm agruing against. We are not looking at the Moon in these pictures and seeing the Moon like it would look if you took a 35mm picture.

If anything I'm agruing that the Clementine pics have more detail than a 35mm pic! What I'm saying is these are "false color" images. i.e. the color is not "true to life" color you would actually see looking at the Moon.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
If they say its natural, why are you saying it isn't?
And the next question, if it's not natural, what the heck are we looking at in the natural color images?

No one has as yet told me what that fire thing is, or even bothered to address the anomalies. All I see is, critiques of the words used by the USGS. If you don't like their word usage, take it up with them.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
From NASA's WorldWind program, I found another blue gem crater, copied it and uploaded it to my server so you can see it. the lat and long is in the right corner. didn't have a name that i could see:

thestargates.com...

[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real

Note that the images on the PDS MAP-A-PLANET present images that include FIVE of these spectral bands (not THREE as in the nearly “true” color RGB image at the above link) when you select the “Abledo (Natural Color)” option data set…



Yeah , and even there the colors are imposed onto the "Albedo" B&W base-map that used near-infrared.

And you can't forget the data for the colors were all recorded at different times and angles using the different color filters that created data sets for those color intensities. Putting that all together again by "processing" is not going to result in a "true to life" color image.



[edit on 16-12-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
Anway, I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. The point is this is not your father's 35mm camera.


Okay one last time on color... just so I understand this...

All the knowledge that NASA et al have in regards to image generation...

All the expensive and advanced cameras and other imaging equipment they have at their disposal.

All the high paid qualified image specialists they have in their employ...

Coupled with the basic knowledge any high school physics student or photographer has on combining red green and blue data to form a true color image...or TV and Computer technician for that matter... [the very screen you are seeing this on.. the image is generated by red green and blue pixels or "guns" adjusted to true color to our vision]

Edited to add... And so can any graphic artist or printing shop... Its just not that hard to do anymore

You are telling us that all this taken into account... NASA CAN NOT produce an image that is true color?


If thats true... its time to hire some new staff

You know the Mars Rovers have a little pad on them... its a color chart... so they can compare this to a matching one on Earth and produce true color images...

I suppose that is all nonsense as well?

Give me a break!! Now who is insulting NASA???



The image on the left is covered in dust. A dust devil blew off the dust and extended the life of the Rover
Those little critters are like the Energizer Bunny... still going.....



[edit on 16-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Zorgon

I think they are trying to tell us that the blue glowies wouldn't be blue or glowy if the original camera was taking natural images. Their claim is that the blue glowies are from near infra-red heat sensing. Now mind you, the visible spectrum (for the human eye) goes up to 750nm, but that's why they are calling it near infra-red. a little play on words, i suppose.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

You know the Mars Rovers have a little pad on them... its a color chart... so they can compare this to a matching one on Earth and produce true color images...

I suppose that is all nonsense as well?

Give me a break!! Now who is insulting NASA???



Why do the rovers need a "color pad"?

Did the Clementine satellite have anything like that?

I'm sorry but that's not relevant IMO.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You are telling us that all this taken into account... NASA CAN NOT produce an image that is true color?

No I'm telling you this was a scientific experiment and the goal wasn't to take "life-like" Kodak moment pretty pictures of the Moon or deceive the public.



Give me a break!! Now who is insulting NASA???:

It's still you and your half-baked attempt to deceive the public and obfuscate the truth.

K?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I'm sorry but that's not relevant IMO.


That is not surprising really... it seems to me that there is nothing that some people can be shown that they would consider evidence or relevant. Rather than address the issue of the coverups INSIDE the photos they would rather argue the photos.

The relevance of the target on Rover is simply to show that NASA seems to be aware of how to create images in true color. Some people here seem to be trying to convince us that NASA doesn't know what they are doing and cannot show us true color pictures of the moon, yet can do so from Mars...

Must be a different team working on it I guess...LOL Maybe the Navy have different photo editors...

It also seems that the point a few are making is that these images have been around a long time..

Let me ask you this... have you seen them before this thread? The 64 meg .tiffs and the PDS Mapper images? If so why have you never once mentioned them, nor ever clipped one single image from them?

And this question goes to Savior of the Real as well.


Is there anyone else out there that has seen these before this thread? Same applies why has no one posted images of these or sample clips from these before?

There are MANY threads here at ATS dealing with all kinds of NASA and other space images.. yet no one posted one single shot of these gorgeous images?

Nothing unusual about that huh?

[edit on 16-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
So back to the anomalies LOL

I am surprised no one has yet looked up that old faithful "Archology Row" area next to Ukert Crater using this imager... You know the square crater next to the triangular crater, Triesnecker pyramid... LA all that stuff? Well what the heck, lets go have a look...



Amazing!!! Can't see a thing! Seems to be covered up....

ban:



Sorry a weak moment... won't happen again

:shk:

You will also notice the color of this area... which is basically drab brownish/grayish and its like this in much of the area of the moon even in these images Those beautiful color areas are not everywhere
So I gues they did selective false color editing then? Sheesh

No "deception"... no "distortion" of the truth... we are simply showing you what is there... we didn't create these images... and I am sorry if what is in front of your eyes upsets you


[edit on 16-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

The relevance of the target on Rover is simply to show that NASA seems to be aware of how to create images in true color. Some people here seem to be trying to convince us that NASA doesn't know what they are doing and cannot show us true color pictures of the moon, yet can do so from Mars...



Yeah using a color template on Mars and the cameras on the Mars Rover.

Your comparing Apples to Oranges here. The cameras on the Rovers are nothing like the Clementine Satellite.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman


I see you avoided the direct question...

When did YOU first see these images... you have been looking at NASA pics and videos a long time and avidly posting finds in threads..


jra

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You are telling us that all this taken into account... NASA CAN NOT produce an image that is true color?


If thats true... its time to hire some new staff




It's not that they can't, it's that they don't need to. What purpose does true colour help in scientific study? Absolutely nothing!

But they do plan to include the ability to take true colour images on the next mars rover though. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
All the knowledge that NASA et al have in regards to image generation...

Like you told us, it wasn't a NASA mission, so NASA can not be the one to blame in this case.


Let me see if I can explain what I have understood about the colours.

This its what they say in the PDF on the link provided by zorgon:

The cameras were equipped with a set of special color filters selected to provide the maximum amount of information about the surface mineralogy of the Moon and Geographos. The images and other data returned from lunar mapping cover 100% of the Moon's surface at spatial resolutions that cannot be obtained from observatories on Earth.

Common rock-forming minerals on the Moon and in meteorites can be identified by color in the visible and infrared portion of the spectrum. Major silicate minerals can be recognized by their absorption of particular colors in the near-infrared from reflected sunlight (see Figure 4). Thus, rocks composed of various amounts of these minerals can be distinguished and mapped by means of the multispectral images taken with Clementine's cameras.
source

So, they didn't want to take photos with the colours we usually see, they wanted to see the Moon under those lights to spot specific differences between the different types of rock.

They also have an image showing the different wavelengths of various filters (the information its the same as that posted by Saviour Of The Real, only the image is different, and I think this is easier to understand).



As you can see, they could not have a Red, a Green and a Blue version of the images using those filters.

But they could create an almost normal image using the filters they had, as you can see in the following image, a composite image.





Originally posted by undo
No one has as yet told me what that fire thing is, or even bothered to address the anomalies. All I see is, critiques of the words used by the USGS. If you don't like their word usage, take it up with them.

I will not comment on things seen in those images that could have a different aspect with a different colour before I know if we are seeing or not the true colours, as a normal human being sees them.

And I am not criticising their words, I simply want to understand what are we talking about before starting to make conclusions, I could make conclusions based on wrong information.


PS: if we find these images, with a resolution of 100m per pixel, fantastic, imagine what those taken by the high-resolution camera are, with a resolution of 8m per pixel.




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
If it's infra-red why does it say the camera is a uv/vis camera? because the images are not infra-red. they are taken in the visual range with 750nm parameters because that's the max of the visible range. notice it doesn't say because that's the max or even the minimum of the infra-red.


Edit: I know 750nm can also be the minimum of infra-red and that's exactly my point. They don't mention it being used in the infra-red minimum but in the visible (which would be the visible max).


[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Anything below 750nm is infra-red. They didn't take pics in infra-red.
They did, however, take pictures in the visible and ultra-violet. The 750nm was just the lowest parameter of the visible/uv spectrum that the cameras would take. Otherwise, how would they take UV (high end) pics with an infra-red camera, especially since it said they took UV/VIS pics, not infra-red pics.

Here's the spectrum of visible light. The arrow indicates that everything ABOVE 750nm was taken, everything below 750nm was not taken, for the Albedo (natural color) images.




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Anyway, back to the purpose of the thread. This one is a massive dome of what I'm assuming is transparent substance like glass. Notice attached to the bottom left of it is an other smaller dome encasing ....well, i dunno what it's encasing but it's certainly odd! The sections of it are not actually sections from what i can tell. they are tiny scan lines.

The Glass Dome



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join