Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!

reply to post by mikesingh


muchos gracias, mike

..and (if poss) ron

These look like steps to me, and not any form of pixelation. I am not an expert, but I do know what steps look like when I see them, as I can't climb them. These are steps, as they have too sharp edges, like they have been cut out of the rock.

It is only an observation.

reply to post by rachel07


47 days after its start, we are back at the beggining of this discussion...

Did you saw all the thread?

[edit on 26/12/2007 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


I have read alot of this thread and have yet to see anyone post examples of other jpegs at original size and when zoomed show "pixelation" that appears like this with the area around it failing to show the same "pixelation". Did I just miss them, or are we to take everyones word for it that it is compression? If I missed them I would love to see them, 21 pages is alot though.

Originally posted by shug7272
reply to post by ArMaP

 

I have read alot of this thread and have yet to see anyone post examples of other jpegs at original size and when zoomed show "pixelation" that appears like this with the area around it failing to show the same "pixelation". Did I just miss them, or are we to take everyones word for it that it is compression? If I missed them I would love to see them, 21 pages is alot though.

Spot on!! Jpg compression, geometric distortion, pixelation, comp artifacts, 3-D overlay effects, CCD glitches, dust-on-the-lens, computer generated transformations, photographic perspective projection glitches, missing pixels, poor data transmission anomalies, optical abberation, barrel distortion, perceptual image distortion, etc, etc.

Have I left anything out? So these images in the OP are some or all of the above EXCEPT POSSIBLE REMAINS OF A MARTIAN CITY!!!

Cheers!


[edit on 1-2-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by shug7272


ALL the image is affected by the same type of "pixellation", but the biggest problem is that we're NOT talking about a photo, but about a PROCESSED image.



The original PHOTO can be found here

This is the image PROCESSED by Freie Universität Berlin which has been used by marsanomalyresearchbutfoundnothing:

The raw data is processed in several steps at the German Aerospace Center (DLR).
The final data is the foundation for scientific research of the international HRSC Team as well as the press releases. The press releases are
published simultaneously on our webpage, the webpage of ESA and those of the DLR.

www.geoinf.fu-berlin.de...

To these "several steps", you have to add the following "steps", made by marsanomalyresearchbutfoundnothing (more or less):


Step # 1: locate the area


Step # 2: crop


Step # 3: bicubic resample with resize 400 %


Step # 4: reduced brightness -85 %, increased contrast + 42 %


At this point, they reduced the color depth but i have no idea how because i've never made works in order to REDUCE the quality of an image:
anyway, the final result is this one:


Comparison between the processed image and the original photo:


Well: now if you see the formation in both images, then it's actually there: if you see it only in the first one, it's a processing artifact: there's nothing much else to say.
Hope this helps.
Peace,
Internos



[edit on 1/2/2008 by internos]

This is an area cropped from the link that internos had provided. I've converted it to B/W. Notice the possible compression artefact toward the upper left. But the remainder of the image doesn't seem to have these as they are features on the ground. Artificial or natural, I cannot say, but it does look like a 'city' type complex in ruins!



Cheers!

reply to post by shug7272


I said before that I don't think that those are JPEG artifacts, and the fact that you say it in your post only shows that we are really at the beginning, again.

I know that reading all the pages in this thread could be tiresome, but if you are interested in this subject I suggest you do it.

And no, we should not take anyone's word about anything just because it was said (even if it helps our own opinion against some other people's opinion), we should judge for ourselves based on the information we can get, preferably not spoon fed but researched by ourselves, we learn a lot this way.

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by shug7272

 

At this point, they reduced the color depth but i have no idea how because i've never made works in order to REDUCE the quality of an image:
anyway, the final result is this one:

Changing the brightness to +52% and the contrast to +80% I achieved a simmilar look in Paint Shop Pro 6. The coulours were reduced by this process from 128 to 53.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Changing the brightness to +52% and the contrast to +80% I achieved a simmilar look in Paint Shop Pro 6. The coulours were reduced by this process from 128 to 53.

ArMap, excellent work as always: the result that you reached is the closest one i've seen so far. Now the question is: why, someone interested in showing better a detail, would proceed so, (basically, on the contrary)? IMHO, the fact is that they used the artifact created by the image processing just in order to make appear these shapes. All around i've found checkerboards, temples, X shaped areas and, of course steps, many ones: but in the original image, there's not a single clue of them...
Edit: removed image from quote.

[edit on 1/2/2008 by internos]

reply to post by mikesingh


After looking at the original in a decent photo editing program, at extreme zoom, you can see similar pixellation on any flat area in the photo you care to look at. So I'm going with pixellation...

J.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by mikesingh

 

After looking at the original in a decent photo editing program, at extreme zoom, you can see similar pixellation on any flat area in the photo you care to look at. So I'm going with pixellation...

Can you show me any other area on Mars having this type of pixelation? If you can, then we can put this whole topic to rest!!

reply to post by mikesingh

Did you look at the 1600 res "original" (ie the original processed image, here)?
The pixelation is seen across the board at various degrees of strength (even at the topmost dark section are lines).

What it looks like to me is that their source (whatever they based the processed 3D on, not necessarily the grayscale original) had these artifacts and they followed through the process OR it is a produce of the actual original->3D process: the 3D image is clearly much more low resolution than the NASA original, the hills are a big blob instead of sharply defined.

What this means in practice is that even if the original NASA image had by some chance shown a city, the processed 3D image would smooth it over completely.

The very idea then that we go looking for the "city" on the processed image is quite amusing.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by merka]

reply to post by merka


Just a little correction, the images are from ESA, not NASA.

Originally posted by merka
What this means in practice is that even if the original NASA image had by some chance shown a city, the processed 3D image would smooth it over completely.
The very idea then that we go looking for the "city" on the processed image is quite amusing.

That's what I've been trying fathom! As we know, the raw data from ESA is processed in several steps at the German Aerospace Center (DLR). So using the same processes, why aren't similar compression artifacts visible in say, the images of the Cydonia area or for that matter, any other area on Mars? Can you show it?

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

We dont have the raw data used by that DLR group, so its impossible to tell why its so visible on this particular scene. So we cant do the same process (we dont have the 3D mesh either).

Maybe someone just fuxed up and compressed the texture to much.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by merka]

reply to post by merka


Is there just one image of Mars produced by GAC (DLR) using this process? You mean to say there are no other images produced by them that are available on the net? I wonder if Internos or ArMaP can get hold of a couple for comparison? That would be interesting. Particularly the Cydonia area.

Cheers!

HAHAHA.. that's totally jpeg compression. I've seen it a thousand times...


And another line to avoid the censors

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Quazga]

reply to post by merka


That image (the colour image, not the 3D rendering) is one of the few more recent images that I have seen that has less colours than the normal. Another image that suffers from this problem is another image posted on ATS, the one with "temple".

And you can see if you can achieve the same result (the colour image) using images h0533_0000_re2.jpg, h0533_0000_gr2.jpg and h0533_0000_bl2.jpg respectively for the Red, Green and Blue channels, available here.

You can notice that the image for the Red channel suffers from some distortion, maybe that was the cause of the not so good colour result.

If you want to use the original data (and have the software to do it), you can download the IMG files from here.

Whether it be pixelations or some kind of inperfection of the lense, it is still very intriguing.
I was reading all the posts and when internos was adiment with personal resolve, I had to take a gander through the examples of the anomolies depicted thru an internet search. If , by chance this is a "Pixelation Hoax" it is very perplexing to the eye.
I am not a very knowledgable individual when it comes to photo shop and the like, but I know there are some very talented people out there that can produce almost anything they can dream up.
While I was on my search, I came across this image and wondered if this has been debunked or concluded as a hoax?



Source:
paranormal.about.com...

But regardless, "Mike, Zorgon would be proud of your defense's and research quanderies to 'Denying Ignorance'!!"