SCI/TECH: What Color Is Mars, Really?

You have to read all the letters and numbers between the pictures.

(and no, for the reasons explained)

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Kano]

Indeed, and just to point out that you instructions were simple enough to follow.

I simply appreciate the detail you have given here. Conspiracy is all very well, but to either prove it or refute it, it should be backed up with imperical evedence which in this case not only has it been done but has also been explained. Even I nearly understand!

Excelent job Kano. Very well done. You've explained it with lots of detail and still very understandable too. Thanks for all the work you've put into this.

Very nice work indeed.

So the answer is that there have not yet been any 'true' color images from Spirit.

This should be explained as simply as possible when NASA presents these images. The conspiracy is that millions of people think they have seen what Mars looks like on the surface, but they have not.

Mars is not quite as red as it would seem.

What we've seen released so far is a pretty close approximation. There is no reason to suspect NASA has done anything wrong with their choice of levels in the panorama pics released. They also mesh in nicely with the one part of it that we can check. (The little silver pole and corner of the sat-dish).

Plus we can see the true color of the sky in the reflection on the sundial mirrors in the L4, L5 and L6 pic.

Give me a little more time to figure out if the exposure levels are given anywhere.

This site has some of the original images sent back form Spirit...

Click the Sol2 link under Panoramic Camera and you'll notice that a lot of the images of the calibration target shift to look like the pan shot in question... I think these are the Red Green and Blue channels all seperate...

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

I don't have time to play with them in photoshop and paste them all together in the propper channels, but I'm sure someone will.

Let me know if I'm right that these are the channels being sent seperately.

The only thing I find odd is that they don't come in 3's all the time.

question did spirit land in gustav crater how big is this thing becuase looking at the pics it seems enourmous becuase there are almost no cliffs in the horizion to make it look like a crater.

The first post of the thread has been updated with a link to the beginning of Kano's excellent work... and I've also removed this from "top story" status. As it is, in just four days, this thread became the 10th most viewed thread in ATS history. Excellent contributions from one and all!

For those playing the home game, it appears the exposure levels are shown in the filename. More to come.

When I get a chance I'll try and collate all this rambling into a coherent document. Might be a struggle though

This guy might need some of your help. fire.prohosting.com...

Wow looking through that last site was interesting. I'm still not sur eI completely understand the whole coloour scenario, but I do enjoy seeing the clearer pictures that people have been able to generate by playing with the colours.

What do you suppose tha tlast picture is on the link above? It looks like the remains of a meteor, except I've never seen a crater that big with anything left in it...especially anything so large and sphericle.

I must also say that I've never seen that picture anywhere else. Can it be verified?

It seems the exposure information is not given in the filename. Travelled quite a way up that creek before realising I had no paddle.

Its looking more and more like being impossible to combine all of the 'Raw' images manually to get true-color images. At least without finding out some more about the images.

But, do not despair!. You'll notice the phrase 'impossible to combine all' of the images. There are still a few which we can get a very close approximation of the actual colors. For example any picture that has the sundial or that pole (or any other white part of the rover) visible. These images we can be sure are close to the true-color images, with the only difference that any overall red tint will be lost.

So from the images we already have we can independantly check on the color of the ground and sky.

The sundial picture shows the reflected sky and the picture with the pole and sat-dish (I really should find out what that little pole is at some stage ) shows the ground.


So all we are able to do so far is show that the sky and ground color we have been seeing in the released NASA images have been accurate. As you would expect really.

I'll try to find time tomorrow to organise all this crap into something readable.

EDIT: Oh another point I forgot to mention, the 'Raw' data on the NASA webservers is not technically 'Raw'. As NASA uses its own image compression, then converts to .jpg when hosted online. Most likely to save bandwidth, plus its a much more palatable format.

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by Kano]

By the in-photo color chart reference, brown should be green and pink should be light blue. HMMM Blue sky and green-blue soil (algae components). So, the retracted ballon drag marks scraped away a thin layer of dry crust to reveal moisture content. Appearance of dragging your boot across earth ground showing muddy scrape look.
btw, Ive not seen nor ever known of any dumb questions anyplace. Just considered additional thoughts to either eliminate or develop further questions seeking a closer result to the answer.
from Majestic (MJ) come discuss this and more on my chat server www.alienx.net...

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by MJ]

Its looking more and more like being impossible to combine all of the 'Raw' images manually to get true-color images. At least without finding out some more about the images.

So NASA designed a camera that makes it impossible to create color images unless you have some obscure data that you have not found, but the images look like they are color.

It's starting to sound like a conspiracy to me again.

I tried to help. The once revered RumorMillNews is all but lost. I sent Rayelan and a few other "agents" links to this thread and Kano's excellent analysis. What appears today seems as though they'd rather accept ideas of wild conspiracy, than consider cold reason and logic: www.rumormillnews.com... Here we have the rationale for Skepticism in conspiracy research/discussion... to avoid looking like deluded paranoiacs. While there are still issues with the images were seeing from NASA that need to be examined (why isn't NASA explaining these color shifts?), I think we can put to bed the image doctoring theorization rather easily now. But no... other "members" of the "conspiracy community" would rather avoid logical analysis and discredit us all.

Can the color from the images could be altered by the fact that this is not earth's atmosphere and the light isn't filtrated the same way like colors could be seen bether than here or something like that?? i'm no expert but it's been bothering me...

Originally posted by ArchAngel
So NASA designed a camera that makes it impossible to create color images unless you have some obscure data that you have not found, but the images look like they are color.

It's starting to sound like a conspiracy to me again.

I really would appreciate it if you didn't just take my quotes out of context. If you read any further you'd understand how foolish that analysis is. It is far from impossible. As also mentioned, we can confirm the coloration of the sky and ground. We can't re-create every picture because we don't have their purpose built software, or further calibration settings and exposure level information.

The exposure levels are maximised to increase the signal to noise ratio (SNR).

I was not trying to misquote you. Color is not a simple issue with the cam, and to 99% of the people the images presented are 'color'.

We know that is not exactly true. At least not for the images that NASA has presented so far.

But did not NASA go through this before? Publishing one image, then a color corrected image later. It is not as if they have not been through this before.

They know why they exist. Because of taxpayers. They know what we demand for payment. Nice pretty high resolution color pictures of mars. They want to see what Mars really looks like.

There was plenty of time to plan for this first color image. Rather than repeat the mistakes of the past they could have presented a true color image first.

Hopefully we will see many of these in the future. I'm sure there will be many people looking closely at all of them.

Seeing as NASA is publishing the RAW channel images, they could do a better job of informing the public on how to use them. Might end most of the conspiracy paranoia.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord The once revered RumorMillNews is all but lost. I sent Rayelan and a few other "agents" links to this thread and Kano's excellent analysis. What appears today seems as though they'd rather accept ideas of wild conspiracy, than consider cold reason and logic: www.rumormillnews.com...

I sent an e-mail to CliffMickelson, the author of the above Rumor Mill News all-caps paranoia-spew, pointing out Kano's work and some of the great contributions of our members on this subject. His only response was: "Very interesting reading." So, some 6 hours after receiving this response from Cliff, nothing has been updated on RMN, and it's very clear they're much more interested in spreading paranoia and conspiro-hype, rather than facts and analysis.