posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:53 PM
The first image is what I think you mean in original size. The second is at 500% with no re-sampling. The third is at 500% with "Bi-cubic Smoother"
The first and second are what is really there. The third is re-sampled and unreliable as to accuracy of it's representation.
Unless you can find a much higher resolution original with no re-sampling there is no way to interpret what is there. When people use re-sampled
images from resolutions as low as this original, they are useless. The algorithms averages between pixels which means the product is not
representative of what is really in the picture.
There may be a better quality original. Others at ATS know where to look.
My opinion is it is just a rock. Those smooth looking holes in the re-sampled image I made could be square or jagged. No way to tell.
Most images on the Internet relating to these subjects are garbage. Less than honest people are constantly using filters to make the photo's fit the
theory. What you see in the second image is all the info there is in that photo.
If you have a genuine interest you should read up on image resizing and the algorithms and how they work. Also look up interpolation. Other filters
people wrongly use are sharpening algorithms and the like. There are entire websites full of deceptive images created after the fact. I have never
seen one of these that could be honestly said to be anything other than a rock. I keep looking however in case a real one slips through the cracks.
Edited to add: If I'm not mistaken, that rock would be the size of a marble.
[edit on 5/21/2008 by Blaine91555]