posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by WingedOne
This is a good example of why I don't like that site.
First, the image used here
is a copy of the original
one posted on the official site, but it was saved with a stronger compression, making it look worse than it really is.
Second, when he says:
Of course the above fourth image evidence sourced from the official black and white browse image doesn't really match the above official
description but that may change with the much closer view MRO JP2 images. However, they require a large file size special graphics viewer that I doubt
many of you will avail yourself of and so we'll stick here with the lesser quality browse images so that most of you who wish to can easily follow
behind me. Now check out the next image below.
it looks like he does not want people to see the original, lossless JP2 file.
The IAS viewer is two clicks away, and there are some programs (including Photoshop and the free kdu_show from Kakadu
) that can read JP2 files, why make it look like a difficult or complex process by saying "I doubt many of you will avail yourself of"
And obviously, the original
data, the one on the JP2 file, shows a much better image.
This is more or less the same area viewed with IAS viewer (that has a handy way of saving the image like we see it on screen) with a 12.5% zoom.
This is with a 50% zoom, and, as you can see and as expected, it looks much better than the fuzzy JPEG used.
How can I see that site as a honest attempt to decipher Mars mysteries when it only shows that he does not even want to have the trouble to use an
online viewer like IAS viewer?
I, that do not own any site but am interested in Mars, have downloaded and put on DVDs (up to this day) 768 images from HiRISE, why doesn't he do the
same? They are free!