Mars Rover Picture Analysis Discussion

Any 'color' images other than L456 images should not be put up on NASA's press page. There is no valid reason for doing anything else.

That all of the most viewed 'color' pictures are not L456, and most people believe that they are color proves that there is a conspiracy.

The results are that the vast majority of people believe these are color images. The results are a lie.

Actually, I don't think the two concepts are that incompatible. It would certainly be possible that the raw images could have been streamed into the necessary file directories automatically, and what we are seeing as a delay could simply be the updating of the associated web-page front end that gives easier surfing access to the images.

True, though the directories at least, aren't automatically created. For example the 'not allowed to access' error given when you try to view the directory containing the Sol16 Pancam images:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
Is not present when you try to view the Sol26 images:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

At least right now it isnt, it will be when the sol26 directory is created of course

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Kano]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Any 'color' images other than L456 images should not be put up on NASA's press page. There is no valid reason for doing anything else.

That all of the most viewed 'color' pictures are not L456, and most people believe that they are color proves that there is a conspiracy.

The results are that the vast majority of people believe these are color images. The results are a lie.

Isn't that a little ignorant? NASA has to get something out there ASAP, or your conspiracy bells would be ringing much louder. They also have to balance that with the mission of the Rovers, which is a geological one, not a sightseeing one. If L2 filters are preferable for the geologists, its L2 thats used. We also already know that the L256 images really aren't all that far removed from the L456 images, at least as far as the colors of the Landscape/Sky go.

It is also nice to see NASA becoming slightly more proactive in getting this point across. They have started pointing out which filters are used and that the images are approximations (even though we know all digital images are approximations). Add to this the point that Barry mentioned about Dr. Bell suggesting more L456 panoramas in the future. I really don't think theres any justification for your comments.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Any 'color' images other than L456 images should not be put up on NASA's press page. There is no valid reason for doing anything else.

That all of the most viewed 'color' pictures are not L456, and most people believe that they are color proves that there is a conspiracy.

The results are that the vast majority of people believe these are color images. The results are a lie.

Now, now... let's not overstate the situation. It's certainly doesn't PROVE a conspiracy. It might SUGGEST one, but a suggestion is not proof.

Personally, I'm at the point where I think the whole thing will come down to simple bad judgement, as opposed to anything sinister.

It would have been nice if the initial L2-L5-L6 images had come with disclaimers that they didn't represent colors as humans would see them.

If we get the full raw data from these L4-L5-L6 calibration shots with the terrain and the calibration tool in the same shot, and a few panoramas with L4-L5-L6, I think we can say with a high degree of confidence what the surface actually looks like.

The surprisingly wide variety of offered colorizations of (ostensibly) the same terrain leaves NASA with more than a little egg on its face IMO, but it's certainly a "recoverable" situation.

Again, it would be nice if they would come out and explain why the "approximate true color" images that they released on Jan 19th of Sushi, Sashimi and Adirondack (using L4-L5-L6) are so different from the most recent L4-L5-L6 pictures. I hardly think both can be considered "right" by reasonable people.

Putting out that much variety is certain to get some people questioning just how effective the crew is at reliably producing images that reasonably match a human's vision... are they just figuring it out as they go along?

Once they decide that they finally have it "figured out", are they going to go back and provide corrected versions of the inaccurate ones that they put out?


[Edited on 1-31-2004 by BarryKearns]

Isn't that a little ignorant? NASA has to get something out there ASAP, or your conspiracy bells would be ringing much louder.

Look closely at the images used for the recent panorama's. The L4 is there for all of them. There is ZERO reason to not have used L4 instead of L2.

It exists, and should be the VERY FIRST used to make color images.

Is this not true for all of the color images released?

The data was there when they produced the images. Your rationalization does not apply.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Look closely at the images used for the recent panorama's. The L4 is there for all of them. There is ZERO reason to not have used L4 instead of L2.

No it isn't, where are you looking?

Opportunity has the panorama images on Sol2.

There are 3 scenes from Sol3 that have been imaged with almost all the array of filters (2 of the bedrock and one of the disturbed soil from the landing). But they are not part of the panorama that was released.

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Kano]

Opportunity has the panorama images on Sol2.

Excuse me. I thought they were from newer ones.

Looking through SOL 3&4 there are now enough L456 images to create a real color panorama for the first time.

To me failure to produce a L456 image from these latest images would be proof.

Maybe they did not exist before, but they do now.

No longer is there a reason to falsely present L256 images as color.

I eagerly await NASA publishing this panorama.

It would do more for their cedibility than anything else right now.

Originally posted by Kano
Excellent find, thankyou slinter.

Also, from the latest press release:



Larger image here:
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

Ground sky and sundial in one frame. (Sky in sundial mirrors).

Judging from the color of the mirrors at the sides of the circle around the sundial, the sky looks orange to a tan color. I'm surprised that you can see the surface in this image with the sundial. I was told the field of view of the camera is too small to allow that.
See for example this image:



Note that in the high Sun image, judging by the mirrors, the sky is not red here. I would guess a dark grey, perhaps with a dark blue to dark purple component. The mirrors in the low Sun image do look rather orange. Note also the surrounding circle with the mirrors (the part that says "Two worlds One Sun") rather follows the color of the mirror.
Because of the color of the mirrors I was going to say the first image above was taken during low Sun. But look at the shadow of the post. This shows it was taken during high Sun.
I would be interested to find out why the two high Sun images wound up with different colors, and in fact the first image above looks more like the low Sun case.
Note also the whitish, rectangular object to the right of the sundial. In the first image above the circle in its center has a color quite close to that of the orange tab on the sundial. Yet in the second image in both the high sun case and the low sun case, the circle's color is much more muted. Do you think there could have been some colorization applied to the first image above in addition to straight brightness normalization and combination of the different filter images?
Perhaps you can ask Jim Bell about this.


Bob Clark

I'd say that would just be different weather on the days in question Bob. Or perhaps the images were processed at different sites or by different operators. I'd lean towards the weather option though.

Is this anything like what deep sea divers experience in the ocean, where the human vision experiences color shifts and plays tricks on the divers?
Not sure if its the pressure, the light wave manipulation by the water, or both.

Bah, those rovers are rolling around in a patch of desert in Australia with red filters on their lenses while NASA funnels the money supposedly spent on the rovers on military projects.

Originally posted by twitchy
Bah, those rovers are rolling around in a patch of desert in Australia with red filters on their lenses while NASA funnels the money supposedly spent on the rovers on military projects.

Thats the dumbest thing i'v ever heard.

FYI, the rover have being seen by satelites above Mars, but I supose your corroded brain will think those pics are also of earth.

Hey let twitchy speak, I'm sure he has good solid evidence for these claims and wouldn't be just making random unfounded statements based on his own ignorance.

So go ahead twitchy, what makes you think that is the case, also could you tell me whereabouts they are in Aus, maybe I could go pick one up and sell it on ebay.

Originally posted by Murcielago
FYI, the rover have being seen by satelites above Mars, but I supose your corroded brain will think those pics are also of earth.

My corroded brain? What about your atrocious manners? You triangulate the position of those satellites to confirm NASA's data, or did you look at the pictures and gawk. I have pictures of my kids light saber fighting thanks to digital imaging technology, but that don't make it real. Real time video imaging through not only the Van Allen Belt but the martian atmosphere and the solar wind around mars is a pretty impressive feat for a space agency that can't even get a probe to land there five(?) years ago.

Originally posted by twitchy
Real time video imaging through not only the Van Allen Belt but the martian atmosphere and the solar wind around mars is a pretty impressive feat for a space agency that can't even get a probe to land there five(?) years ago.

Interesting, being that there is no 'Real time video imaging' going on. Perhaps you could familiarise yourself a little more with what the Rovers are actually doing.

Additionarlly, all sorts of orbiters and landers have been making it for around 3 decades. There has been a high rate of failure (around 1/3 of the missions have failed) but it isn't all that simple a mission.

So maybe you could bother to look into the mission and understand what is going on (Or in your case, what NASA is claiming is going on) before making such assertions.


I'm still very interested to see any evidence you have that would suggest the Mission is occuring in Australia somewhere, as well as an approximate guess at the locations. (I say locations because both Spirit and Opportunity are in quite different landscapes.)

twitchy - You obviously have no faith in what humans can do.

Yes, Nasa has had problems in the past, because EVERY one makes mistakes every now and then. You probably also think that we didn't land on the moon, or build a science labratory 250 miles above the earth.

there is an possible error in your method to combine the raw data !
Your méthode :


if you convert the Raw (jpg RVB 16bit) to 8bit B&W before combine :


[edit on 30-1-2005 by vanden]

jpg RVB 24bit of course !
no 16bit

Well since this is the right thread here it is.

xfacts.com...

And this one is from the enterprise mission ( i forget where).

img496.imageshack.us...

The reason for wanting to change the colour is imo to make colonization seem expensive and thus easy to move off the table while Nasa goes on with it's primary military orientated mission.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The reason for wanting to change the colour is imo to make colonization seem expensive and thus easy to move off the table while Nasa goes on with it's primary military orientated mission.

Forgive my lack of understanding, but how does slight changes of colour make something appear to be more expensive? Firstly, colonization would be expensive. It doesn't matter what colour the yellow cables look like on Mars.

One also has to remember that both the photos you showed are taken in very differnt lighting conditions. Take an object outside durring a sunset when the light is closer to orange and take a photo of it. Then bring that same object into a bright, white room lit with bright flourecent lights. You'll see a big difference in colour. That and NASA's 'true colour' photos are an approximation, they even say so.

Also, just what is this "primary military orientated mission" that NASA is supposedly going on with? You don't think NASA wants to go to Mars?