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.

 

Mars Rover Picture Analysis Discussion

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by crayon
Here is some information from a source other than NASA.

Looks like the low-gain antenna uses 40watts of power.

Rover Communications


Originally posted by mikromarius
Thankyou Crayon for the help. But the question still remains: How much energy would you need to create such waves artificially for the use of digital data transmission from Mars to Earth?


Interresting link. Strange I didn't find that one. Looked at many of the links presented in the end, though some of them didn't work, including a promised detailed spec sheet which was the first link I clicked. Thanks, it answered many of my questions.

Blessings,
Mikromarius




posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
For starters the rover only operates at day, its solar powered remember?


According to the info I just read, this isn't true. It works on hi-tech Li-Ion batteries during night and use the Sun to recharge it's batteries during daytime.


Marius, the only things that come from NASA in my article are the emails, and the RAW images. The rest of the information is from a variety of other sources.


Well sorry then. But how many others than NASA knows the things you posted? I didn't see any referances to ESA and the Japanese Space Agency. Well ESA's vessel didn't make it, but atleast they have been working with much the same stuff, and would still serve as input.

It seemed to me when I read the article that you were basically forwarding information given by your contactees in NASA using a couple of secondary links which included info from the horse's mouth. Can you say that anything except perhaps for the quotes from howstuffworks.com has different sources than NASA?


As you would also know if you had even bothered to read it.

Basically, NASA has a mission on Mars to study the geology. Not to convince you personally of anything. Especially considering you weren't even aware of the difference between sound waves and electromagnetic radiation. That is such a fundamental and ridiculous error as to be unforgiveable, especially when you are challenging things based on this.


Well, again, I am a fool in this area, I have never hid that, and for once someone actually took the time to bother to answer me on one of dozens of questions I have posted. Many of them far better than this, and all of them questions which deserves answers. But on the site provided, radio signals were refered to as mechanical waves which need some kind of material to travel through, ie. air, in order to function. While the Sun (!) was used as an example of things which "transmit" using EM rad. It didn't show any examples on equipment which used EM rad. except for radio telescopes which need more than 100W to function I guess. It didn't even say if it was possible to send patterns like image data using such technology. Radiation of stars was the only thing I could retrieve as examples of sources for electromagnetic radiation. There is hardly a star mounted on the rover.

As for the original subject, the color anomalities: If the color chips have such special pigments, then why does the color of the isolation on the cables and the blue stuff on that greyish brown extremity to the left also change? Did they have some left and decided they'd use it to secure the cables and misc. objects they figured would look nicer with some super pigment (sarcasm intended)? And I also find it quite peculiar that it is the blue and green colors which show these anomalities. The exact two colors we are all missing in the pictures. Isn't it possible that the color of the "blue chip" is infact a fluoricent pink/red which looks blue when this or that IR filter is applied and not the other way around? I have a quite bizarre image I was earlier reluctant with posting for it looked so totally unbelievable that I left it on my HD. When I calibrated that picture in PS the whole image turned out purple-red. I'll retrieve it and post it as soon as I find it....

Edit: as for the last remark about that strangelooking purple picture I calibrated, it is missing from my drive, together with all the rest of the original .psd files which I almost always keep. Perhaps this has something to do with how my firewall has been glowing lately, with medium to high risk triggers from Texas, Pensylvania, Saudi-Arabia and China. All of them portscans and attempts at figuring out what kind of operating system I use and such. I'll redo it without problems I guess, it'll just take some more time. Atleast I'm not the one worshipping these images of Mars. The next thing I will do and at the same time ask anyone else interrested in this to do, is to try and figure out how that numbering system for the files relate to the 666 pattern. I have a couple of mathmaticans I can ask personally too.

Here. I have tweaked the images to bring the blue color back and as good as I could also the other colors, but it wasn't easy. But as you see, the whole image gets a purple color to it. This is why I speculate that they infact use fluoricent colors which shows infact oposite color than what is seen.



Also I noticed som additional anomalities in the picture which includes the sundial and was the reason for this thread in the first place. And I have seen such things many times before. Often when amateurs try to make some cool PS effects. It happens when you tweak the colors too much into the extreme. You see extreme colortints in the whitepoints. I have highlighted the areas by drawing a green square around them in the picture above:



And Kano: About the equivalent word for Hard limiting when it comes to printing, I don't remember the term for it in English, it has been too long, but in Norwegian we call it to "justere for stigning" or something like "adjusting for rising" (possibly saturation) by adjusting the curves for each of the four plates. If an image is to be printed in let's say a paper at coarse raster (around 30 lines per inch) and "tumble" (trommel) print (sorry, I don't know the term in English), the colors bleed much more than fine offset printing at 40-60 lines per inch).

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 23-1-2004 by mikromarius]



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The pigments are used all over the Rover to give more points to use in calibration, even the JPL logo on the rover is like this.

Most of the article was an explanation of what was occuring to create this anomaly, it is widely known physics and not really 'from' anyone. The sources I drew from most however was the hyperphysics links included in the list at the bottom of the article. (Again reading it doesn't hurt).

As far as the Batteries, they are not designed for full Rover operation during the night-time. It is technically possible to take images at night (and the possibility is mentioned on the Rover site somewhere as I recall). But unless it is relevant to the mission, it would be unlikely.

As far as the EM thing, again I suggest you go and do a little research on this matter. Really.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
The pigments are used all over the Rover to give more points to use in calibration, even the JPL logo on the rover is like this.

Most of the article was an explanation of what was occuring to create this anomaly, it is widely known physics and not really 'from' anyone. The sources I drew from most however was the hyperphysics links included in the list at the bottom of the article. (Again reading it doesn't hurt).

As far as the Batteries, they are not designed for full Rover operation during the night-time. It is technically possible to take images at night (and the possibility is mentioned on the Rover site somewhere as I recall). But unless it is relevant to the mission, it would be unlikely.

As far as the EM thing, again I suggest you go and do a little research on this matter. Really.


Please dont misunderstand me or take things personal, I find your article quite interresting, but I also know that it is possible when using fluoricent colors to make one color look like a complete different color by using different filters. I'm not as good with colors as I should have been, but I used to collect stamps, and some stamps actually creates this effect when seen under a blacklight. The mixture of the paint used decides which color the fluoricent mark has in blacklight. Much of the same effect can be seen in discoteqes where they use blacklights. Especially white and neon colors becomes extreme (just look at those techno/house tricots, they're wild!). But which way they turn varies with the paint mixture. I find it strange however that blue should turn pink, and not the other way around though.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
And as for the pigments in the chips, I asked a while back what kind of pigments were used. And just as in most cases in this thread, I didn't get any answers. "Iron oxide" and "prussian blue" behave quite differently in UV light, I want to know exactly which pigments have been used. By simply saying pigments is the reason doesn't explain anything. It's like asking what kind of car it was, and the person you ask say it was a green one.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Well if you are really interested you could go and get a copy of Dr. Bells paper to the December issue of JGR(Planets) regarding the pigments. (As mentioned in the article).

Incidentally the fluorescence you see when you illuminate something with a UV light is rather a different phenomenon to these chips being highly reflective in the IR range.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
As far as the Batteries, they are not designed for full Rover operation during the night-time. It is technically possible to take images at night (and the possibility is mentioned on the Rover site somewhere as I recall). But unless it is relevant to the mission, it would be unlikely.

Mars rovers fact sheet


"The mission seeks to determine the history of climate and water at two sites on Mars where conditions may once have been favorable to life"



"Like the Sojourner rover, Spirit and Opportunity will use radioisotope heater units inside the rover electronics box in order to keep the rover battery and electronics warm and operational during the extremely cold martian nighttime."


If the possibility exists, then I would expect at least a picture or two to be taken of the night sky. As mikromarius pointed out earlier, it would certainly be great for credibility and PR. It doesn't make sense to not utilize the full capabilities, especially if we're simply talking day and night.

I don't think snapping a few shots of the night sky would do much damage to 'the mission' or even set it back.

[Edited on 1/23/2004 by Bangin]



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I'm not saying it won't happen, the possibility of taking some night-time shots was even discussed as I recall. But I don't know if the stars would be visible through the Martian atmosphere, at least with the cameras onboard.

Even if it is possible, and the pictures were taken, we all know we'd still have people assuring us that they were fakes. For whatever reasons they can imagine up.

[Edited on 23-1-2004 by Kano]



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
I'm not saying it won't happen, the possibility of taking some night-time shots was even discussed as I recall. But I don't know if the stars would be visible through the Martian atmosphere, at least with the cameras onboard.

Even if it is possible, and the pictures were taken, we all know we'd still have people assuring us that they were fakes. For whatever reasons they can imagine up.

[Edited on 23-1-2004 by Kano]


But it would take quite some time to mount all those parcans in the correct positions wouldn't it? Especially when the studio is as small as it is. The wings of the scene are quite badly mounted if you ask me. Next time, pay some guys who knows how to do it. But I guess gaffers are too underpaid in the film industry for you to trust them. They would first collect your check, then they would go to the nearest news agency and collect their check, and the whole thing would have boiled out into a witch process. But I guess you'd just use computers for the task. Things are much easier these days. And more difficult, for these days we are quite good at discovering fakes. And with a limited time schedual, there would be greater chance for NASA to screw up.

And as for the stars' visibility. As long as we can see the surface from Earth, we would be able to see the stars from the surface.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by mikromarius]



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
I'm not saying it won't happen, the possibility of taking some night-time shots was even discussed as I recall.


Are you saying you are a NASA inside here? And you were supposed to be unbiazed?

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Why?

Why?

Why would they bother making any of this up? Why can't you just enjoy this? There's no NWO, aliens, MIB, or Arizona deserts on mars.

Are the people at NASA control trained actors? How could a conspiracy the size of NASA be kept secret?

Every forum at the moment is full of people who can barely spell (not aimed at anyone here) assuring me that they are %100 sure that this is a big hoax.

It really puts me off humanity, seeing how stupid some of us are. (again, this is aimed at the 6 million prople on the internet claiming this is fake, not specifically the people in this thread, or indeed on this forum).

No offence to anyone, you are all entitled to your own beliefs and I welcome your opinion, but I really find some of the uneducated opinions being expressed recently quite laughable?

When the earth was proclaimed round, you scoffed.
When we landed on the moon, you scoffed.
When we land on mars you scoff.

It's really boring.

$0.02

This is just my opinion, flame me if you have to. I hate to outburst publicly, but this has been building up inside me for days now.



[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Zzub]



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zzub
Why?

Why?

Why would they bother making any of this up? Why can't you just enjoy this?


Why? There must be a million good reasons. A perfect way to keep the US popularity up in a time when that is highly needed. Or as a cover up for something big and catastrophic, like, say, the danger of Yellowstone exploding at such magnitude no event in recorded history can match. And lastly, sending a probe to Mars, generates a whole lot of money which can be used on black budgets. I could come up with a thousand more reasons, but I simply don't have the time to do all your thinking. And why should I find joy in what I believe is a lie from one end to the other? I am of the kind who want to being able to tell my children the truth and not fooling them by serving lies from a giganti American TV show.


There's no NWO, aliens, MIB, or Arizona deserts on mars.


Then we atleast agree on some things. Thanks for your support.


Are the people at NASA control trained actors? How could a conspiracy the size of NASA be kept secret?


Ask Kano, he seems to work there.


Every forum at the moment is full of people who can barely spell (not aimed at anyone here) assuring me that they are %100 sure that this is a big hoax.


That's probably because only a hypnotised American like yourselves can believe in this obvious hoax. While people who speek other languages and not so much fear MIB or any of the other dragons your gov has up their sleeve infact has a freedom of speech which works, and aren't so blinded and biazed by national pride.


It really puts me off humanity, seeing how stupid some of us are. (again, this is aimed at the 6 million prople on the internet claiming this is fake, not specifically the people in this thread, or indeed on this forum).

No offence to anyone, you are all entitled to your own beliefs and I welcome your opinion, but I really find some of the uneducated opinions being expressed recently quite laughable?


Yes that's the prize we'll have to pay when critisizing America. And most Americans join the choir because you all feel a little indignated by the claims that your greatest heroes are nothing but actors in a marionette toystory.


When the earth was proclaimed round, you scoffed.
When we landed on the moon, you scoffed.
When we land on mars you scoff.


hehe. That's the best I've heared until now. You have a picture of the Earth being round and you claim to be the one who knew this way back? That's just bizarre. As far as I can remember claiming the Earth was round had to do with questioning, not supporting the leading Empire.

Fyi, my forefathers, the vikings, knew the Earth was round way before your country existed. We infact travelled to Vinland which is Northern America, 1000 years ago. But we were wiser than you, for we returned when the natives got angry with us. We didn't start a war and the greatest genocide in history.


It's really boring.

$0.02

This is just my opinion, flame me if you have to. I hate to outburst publicly, but this has been building up inside me for days now.


Yes and you are among the perfect tools to eradicate us who question what the "master race" tells us to believe.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   
mikromarius, thanks for your reply. I read it with interest. I''m pressed for time at the moment, but I want to respond to a couple of your points.

How would the mars mission act as a cover-up for the danger at Yellowstone?


That's probably because only a hypnotised American like yourselves can believe in this obvious hoax. While people who speek other languages and not so much fear MIB or any of the other dragons your gov has up their sleeve infact has a freedom of speech which works, and aren't so blinded and biazed by national pride.

I'm from the UK and I don't consider myself hypnotised by anything, I'm far too sceptical. I consider myself a man of science. I know of the US national pride you speak of, and I assure you I am not in the least affected by it. I actually do not feel loyalty to any single country, I've moved around all my life.


hehe. That's the best I've heared until now. You have a picture of the Earth being round and you claim to be the one who knew this way back? That's just bizarre. As far as I can remember claiming the Earth was round had to do with questioning, not supporting the leading Empire.

Fyi, my forefathers, the vikings, knew the Earth was round way before your country existed. We infact travelled to Vinland which is Northern America, 1000 years ago. But we were wiser than you, for we returned when the natives got angry with us. We didn't start a war and the greatest genocide in history.


I obviously didn't mean I discovered the world was round., I was comparing you to the people who scoffed at these events.

Thanks for the brief, but unnecessary history lesson. I already knew these things. Are you claiming you were involved in these events? Are you ancient, or just taking the credit for some events many years ago?

You say "we returned when the natives got angry with us" actually, there has been some evidence that some viking settlements stayed in nothern America and Canada.


Yes that's the prize we'll have to pay when critisizing America. And most Americans join the choir because you all feel a little indignated by the claims that your greatest heroes are nothing but actors in a marionette toystory.

Again, I'm not from the US, if you look at my sig, you will see that I am from the UK.


Yes and you are among the perfect tools to eradicate us who question what the "master race" tells us to believe.

You've lost me now.

I'd like you to respond to the following, if you'd be so kind.

How could this be fake? It's been said that to get a NASA mission up into space can take up to 20,000 people. How could a cover-up of this size be maintained?

I understand about the black budget, but why would they even bother with a hoax this elaborate? Surely the money can just be obtained through creative accountancy as has been done in the past? If the government has this much control, why do they have to bother?

At which point is it fake?

1. Does NASA exist?
2. Did they actually launch a rocket?
3. Did the rocket just go up and splash down into the water?
4. These space projects involve agencies and companies from all around the globe. They have thier own websites with pictures of the components being made, and numerous scientific publications cover this too, is this all fake? This would mean that this 'hoax' extends to a massive number of people all around the world. I can not once remember anybody claiming that it was fake. Surely a secret this size would have been leaked at some point.

My point with this question is that some of it is obviously real, there is a rover, I've seen them making it. Is it computer generated then, or is it a studio somewhere? Where is the line between truth and fiction? How far have we actually got in space? Independent scientists track these missions. I see satellites going over my house every night. What is real?

I look forward to your response.

I also have to add that you obviously hate the US, and are transferring these emotions onto me. Please don't.



[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Zzub]



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius
Are you saying you are a NASA inside here? And you were supposed to be unbiazed?


No, as mentioned, I read it somewhere on the JPL site, I do not recall where.


Yes and you are among the perfect tools to eradicate us who question what the "master race" tells us to believe.


No, its just kind of frustrating to see someone who doesn't know even the most fundamental aspects of science question something they clearly do not understand. Especially when the explanations are simply ignored (because they don't understand them?).



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano

Originally posted by mikromarius
Are you saying you are a NASA inside here? And you were supposed to be unbiazed?


No, as mentioned, I read it somewhere on the JPL site, I do not recall where.


Yes and you are among the perfect tools to eradicate us who question what the "master race" tells us to believe.


No, its just kind of frustrating to see someone who doesn't know even the most fundamental aspects of science question something they clearly do not understand. Especially when the explanations are simply ignored (because they don't understand them?).


nobody has explained why balloons which look red on earth, look white on mars.
why would they put a red filter on the earth picture?

to zzub, i sense your frustration. it is similiar to the frustration a devout, faithful, priest has when one of his flock questions the existance of god. however, science is just another snapshot of the whole truth. it is often a distorted one.
to the question of, 'could it be kept secret from 20, 000?". the simple answer is yes. you only need the controllers to know what is really going on. compartmentalisation and overspecialisation take care of the rest.
the reason for a hoax? the simple answer is mind control and distraction. propaganda. wag the dog. all the cool toys that get developed are pretty great, too. they must be great if you're building an army of 'terminators'.

you all must realise that systems theory is a much better way to look at life, than through the scientific method. this is mikromarius' strength. he may not know science as well as you, but he does step back from the media and look at life in a more holistic manner. everything is connected. tying in the names of the scientists, projects, and machines, and the motives behind the project are too 'far out' for you to even consider. yet some of us find this a commonplace way to look at the world. are we wrong? maybe. but, how much science would you have to apply to the everything is connected theory to disprove it? could you even disprove it? can 'we' prove it? no, but the strong evidence is presented daily for those with 'eyes to see'.


[Edited on 24-1-2004 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
nobody has explained why balloons which look red on earth, look white on mars.
why would they put a red filter on the earth picture?
[Edited on 24-1-2004 by billybob]


Those shots were from the in-situ testing environment at JPL. Its designed to be as Mars-Like as possible. There are some shots floating around where they have the normal lights on instead.

As far as the rest, sure systems is great for theorising or being an armchair philosopher. But if you want to get something done, or actually understand anything, where do you turn?



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kano

Originally posted by billybob
nobody has explained why balloons which look red on earth, look white on mars.
why would they put a red filter on the earth picture?
[Edited on 24-1-2004 by billybob]


Those shots were from the in-situ testing environment at JPL. Its designed to be as Mars-Like as possible. There are some shots floating around where they have the normal lights on instead.

As far as the rest, sure systems is great for theorising or being an armchair philosopher. But if you want to get something done, or actually understand anything, where do you turn?


i will accept that answer about the balloons for now. i still think it fishy that the public is being shown a distorted view of the color issue.
NASA knows that they are under severe scrutiny, and the public relations department should be making sure that the pulbic is well informed on the technical difficulties of the mission.
that said, the technical difficulties of color calibration should be a walk in the park compared to the other challenges of shooting a tiny pile of gear 300 million miles(or however far it is) onto a slightly larger(in space terms) target. i find it hard to believe that they wouldn't just publish accurate pictures. they could do it in 1979, why not know? did they forget a bunch of stuff.
i actually understand quite a bit. i like to focus on the bigger picture.
you wouldn't understand(no insult intended. you're obviously brilliant, just overspecialized perhaps).

edited for beer[hic]

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
First off, thanks to Kano for the truly yeoman's work done on collecting this excellent information all into one spot. I've been more than a bit bothered since seeing the January 8th mosaic image, and this info at least allows me to explain why the images look the way that they do.

However, I still have several problems with this approach, and more than a few unanswered pointed questions.

You wrote:



But, do not despair!. 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.


and


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 would say that we can't really go that far... having the low-gain antenna in a ground picture allows us to (at best) compensate for the normalization process. But it can never allow us to recover the "contaminated" red channel.

What do I mean by contaminated? Basically, that we cannot recover the set of colors that humans (and more constrained, the computer RGB display system) can see and work with from the L2 data. L2 is simply inappropriate when trying to construct "human/computer friendly" color images.

Let's take the blue paint chip (and the insulation, and the NASA logo, and the flag, and the Columbia Memorial... anyone else thinking that using a high-IR response pigment in ALL OF THESE was a bad idea?).

Since the blue has such a strong IR response, we end up with red channel pixels that are bright because they have a strong-IR-response blue in them (and green to a lesser extent). We can also have bright red channel pixels from objects that actually ARE red in the human/computer range.

The problem is, after the image is produced, there's no way to say for certain why a particular random pixel is bright in the red channel... is it bright because it is bright in the blue, or bright in infrared?

That means that there is no set of color adjustments to an L2-L5-L6 image that can consistently and reliably produce something close to what a human would see standing there.

Further, Kano wrote:



So even if there was something blue/green on the surface that was extra bright in the near-IR range (very unlikely really) it would still be noticed.


You see, this is part of what bothers me about this whole thing... if we are approaching this scientifically, then we shouldn't be applying our own personal biases about how "likely" something is to exist on Mars. We should use the tools that are available, and let the evidence tell us what is there...

Bias and prejudgement of the outcome is what justifies people using an inappropriate subset of the available tools, and then explaining it away after the fact. To wit:



The images shown by NASA are as close to the actual appearance from the surface as they can get. The colors are as true as fifteen million dollars worth of camera and image processing software can get them. As accurate as any digital image can be.


I contend that this is, quite simply, wrong. The constraints on how close to a "true" image we are getting are a direct result of their choice of filters!

And that's the heart of the real problem that I'm having... there are filters available that allow for the display of something much closer to "true human color" than L2-L5-L6. Namely, the inclusion of the L4 filter.

The L4 filter does not carry any of the erroneous IR data and attempt to map it on to the human / computer "red" channel.

NASA/JPL/Cornell have taken (and constructed) a variety of pictures using the L4-L5-L6 comparison, and have generally done a pretty good job of representing what a human would see.

Examples:

The signed plaque, including the US flag and NASA logo:
2P126632659EFF0200P2899L4M1.jpg
2P126632703EFF0200P2899L5M1.jpg
2P126632747EFF0200P2899L6M1.jpg

The DVD with Lego character Astrobot Biff Starlight:
2P126556727EFF0200P2205L4M1.jpg
2P126556872EDN0200P2205L5M1.jpg
2P126556928EDN0200P2205L6M1.jpg

Pictures of the Pancam Calibration Tool:
2P126802413ESF0200P2110L4M1.jpg
2P126802302ESF0200P2110L5M1.jpg
2P126802332ESF0200P2110L6M1.jpg

2P126802413ESF0200P2110L4M1.jpg
2P126802302ESF0200P2110L5M1.jpg
2P126802332ESF0200P2110L6M1.jpg


OK, let's walk through a reasonable strategy for producing "human friendly" color images of an unknown landscape, given the tools that we have.

There is a color calibration tool mounted near the edge of the Rover. The following frames show that it is not difficult to shoot a full-sized (EFF) or even downsampled (EDN) image which contains the calibration tool and a substantial amount of terrain in the same shot:

2P126824507EFF0200P2303L2M1.jpg
2P126824540EDN0200P2303L5M1.jpg
2P126824562EDN0200P2303L6M1.jpg

The placement of the tool close to the edge of the Rover is, of course, not an accident. It is there precisely so that the terrain colors can be calibrated against a known quantity.

The natural place to start when trying to determine which filters should be included for construction of a color panorama for human consumption... would be to take a shot using this layout with each of the different filters.

One of the aspects about all of this that I find a bit unsettling is that there appears to be no shots whatsoever using L4-L5-L6 which contain both the calibration tool and the terrain... despite the fact that this is the obvious shot for calibrating "near human" images.

The vast majority of the calibration tool shots sent back are ESF shots, meaning that they have been "sub-framed" at the Rover before transmission... they have been cropped.

I can see a bandwidth argument for the majority of the calibration tool shots... but ZERO shots of the terrain with the calibration tool using L4? I find that a little hard to swallow.

They were willing to spend full-frame bandwidth for the picture of the plaque, using three full EFF frames. Even for the Lego character, they spent a full EFF L4 frame plus two downsampled frames.

But we can't have even one EFF or EDN L4 frame (along with the L5 and L6 already taken for the color images) which has the terrain and the tool in the same frame?

I don't buy any of the ridiculous consipacy theories about the Rovers not being on Mars... I'm certain they are there. I don't even believe that NASA is doing any unsavory tampering with the data.

But I find it more than a little curious that the easy, obvious picture to take for proper landscape calibration in human-friendly pictures just happens to be always overlooked.

It wasn't overlooked for the plaque... it wasn't overlooked for the little Lego Astrobot either. But when it comes to giving us an image which allows us to calibrate the landscape in human-friendly colors, we always seem to come up empty.

That set of choices fuels speculation, and they are bringing it on themselves. So I'm going to speculate...

Why send L4-L5-L6 data at full frame sizes for the plaque and the DVD (which people already KNOW the colors of), but never L4-L5-L6 in full frames for the calibration tool?

The DVD and Lego shots can both be easily framed at 1024x1024 without showing any of the surrounding terrain... and are therefore "safe" shots to show in L4-L5-L6.

If the calibration tool is shown in L4-L5-L6 at full frame, the panorama makes it obvious that there is plenty of room for the terrain in the shot... so either the real terrain colors can be calibrated, or they would be forced to choose a framing that makes it obvious that they are AVOIDING showing the terrain.

One last disturbing bit that I've found: The "Maestro" software package allows you to see a very minor subset of the frames from the Rover Pancam. One of those is a picture of the Columbia Memorial, which shows in a VERY nice blend of colors... red, yellow, green, dark and light blues.

For those of you who don't have Maestro, I saved a copy of the picture at ebloot.com...

In the Sol002 raw data archive, you can see the L4 and L6 images, but the L5 was never released (as far as I can tell). So where did Maestro get the green channel data from?

If they didn't publicly release that frame, might they already have taken the L4 frames needed, and simply chose to not publish them (making a human-friendly color balancing effectively impossible)?



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Oh, and another point about:



The images shown by NASA are as close to the actual appearance from the surface as they can get. The colors are as true as fifteen million dollars worth of camera and image processing software can get them. As accurate as any digital image can be.


I have yet to hear anyone address the fact that NASA continues to show two fundamentally different versions of the January 8th mosaic, and calls both of them "PIA05015".

Here are some of the relevant links:

The press release version of PIA05015, which I like to call the "Cherry Kool-Aid" version. The browser photo plus the larger resolution version show the color scheme in question.

The Photojournal website page which shows a different version of PIA05015.

Both of these images can't be "as close to the actual appearance from the surface as they can get"... they are a fundamentally different color scheme.

They aren't even assembled the same way. Take a look at the calibration tool in each image. The frames have been assembled differently, making only half of the calibration tool visible in the Cherry Kool-Aid version.

Yet despite this, NASA is using the same catalog number to refer to each of these two versions.

Which one is used predominantly by the press? Why, the press-release version... the Cherry Kool-Aid version.

They can't both be right, therefore the contention that:

"The images shown by NASA are as close to the actual appearance from the surface as they can get. The colors are as true as fifteen million dollars worth of camera and image processing software can get them. As accurate as any digital image can be."

... is demonstrably false.

I don't believe the landings are faked... that's silly. I don't believe that NASA has tampered with the subset of the raw data that they have CHOSEN to release. But the fact that there are two different versions under the same name, but with different color schemes, tells me that there is something not kosher when it comes to the final color "adjustments" being presented by NASA.


[Edited on 1-25-2004 by BarryKearns]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I've found a really good example of why the L4 data shots are important to understanding what the terrain of Mars looks like... and at the same time, demonstrates that NASA is clearly not just showing us "the best possible" in the case of their L2-L5-L6 mosaic shots.

Let's examine the "color evolution" of the rocks "Sashimi" and "Sushi"... two rocks that were bypassed for grinding, despite what appears to be an intriguing rectangular hole (?!?) in one of them.

To see what NASA was telling the public these rocks looked like on January 8th, view the following link:

NASA's Cherry Kool-Aid Shot

Far left side, about 75% of the way down, you'll see the rocks Sashimi and Sushi. There's a horizontal mosaic seam that runs right through the middle of the larger one.

Then compare this to the version published in the January 12th 360-degree mosaic:

(12 MB version) (Probably best to right-click and "Save Target As...")

(Much smaller version) (You'll probably have to magnify this to get the point, so save a local copy when trying this one too.)

Sashimi and Sushi show up at about halfway down the image, and 85% or so of the way to the right.

Then compare those two with the January 19th release:

Sashimi and Sushi in L4-L5-L6

Notice how utterly different the terrain looks when NASA chooses to balance an L4-L5-L6 image?

Here's a quote from the press release caption for that image: "Data from the panoramic camera's red, blue and green filters were combined to create this approximate true color picture."

I recall someone scoffing earlier in the thread about "Arizona deserts"... that looks an awful lot like an Earth desert picture to me (I don't think it is Earth, of course... but it definitely looks Earth-like).

All three of those pictures can't be the "best they can do", because they are all pretty radically different in color scheme.

Why do I want to see the terrain in the same frame as the calibration tool, using L4-L5-L6? The last picture should make it obvious... it allows us to see extremely close to what the terrain would really look like to a human standing there.

I think the mosaics should have been taken and balanced using that L4-L5-L6 scheme.

Of course, now NASA has a public-relations nightmare on their hands... all three of those images can't be "the truth", so they've been showing colors that are (in my opinion) substantially off for some time.

The more recent pictures appear to be the most reasonable, and they are the ONLY released ones of the terrain using L4-L5-L6 instead of L2-L5-L6.

So what filter scheme did they use as soon as Opportunity landed?

L2-L5-L6.

That boggles me, frankly. Not a single L4 frame from Opportunity yet.

When will they learn? Are they even interested in salvaging some credibility? Or are they too hell-bent on "sticking to their story" in their so-called "color" mosaics?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join