reply to post by vasaga
OK, you won, I watched the video.
As I said, what made me want to avoid the video was the lack of knowledge about the rovers and Mars, the content of the video, being mostly photos
from NASA, is the same that has been know for years (or months or days, according the age of the photos), but I will try to say what I find about the
video itself.
1 - The site is from someone called Holger Isenberg.
2 - The photos are never true colour, only approximate true colour, there is no way of knowing how things really look on Mars without being there
3 - The names of the images have much more information than just what filters were used.
In the case of image 1P272976400ESF90LFP2353L5M1, for example, the name has these meanings:
1 = Opportunity
P = PANCAM
272976400 = number of seconds since January 1, 2000 at 11:58:55.816 UTC
ESF = Sub-frame EDR (EDR means Experimental Data Records)
90 = Site number
LF = Drive number
P2353 = Command sequence number (in this case a Pancam sequence)
L = Left camera
5 = 530nm filter
M = Product producer (in this case MIPL (OPGS) at JPL)
1 = Product version number
4 - I said before that I do not agree with the method of creating the images, and that is because the filters were chosen to make approximate true
colour images using the L4, L5 and L6 filters, but not with that method, just by joining each channel in an image.
That was how I made this colour image.
The problem with using the 3 images from the 3 filters is that all photos are taken in the best way, and that makes some images darker or brighter
than the components they should show, because taking a photo with a blue filter, for example, optimises the photo for what can be seen with the blue
filter, but a photo with all filters optimises the image for the whole spectrum, and in that case the blue channel may be brighter or darker than the
blue only image (I hope you understand what I mean, I think I made it more complicated than I should).
Using that information (the radiometric data), they adjust the images, and making the colour image with the adjusted images gives the common, reddish,
NASA look.
I prefer (without anything scientific to back it up
) to use the corrected images but without the radiometric correction data, it gives better
looking images, in my highly subjective opinion.
5 - The "greenish coloured ground" is not dry algae, it's the common "blueberries".
6 - NASA did not "screwed with data about how the surface looks like", once more, the data is available for anyone to look at, we just have to know
where to look, this image appears in some NASA pages.
7 - Dry dust can be bellow the freezing point without being frozen solid, only water on the ground makes it hard, a cold, dry, ground would behave as
a warmer dry ground.
8 - I don't understand what is the purpose of showing Earth and Mars with a note about the length of the day. The fact that it shows the Earth and
Mars with the same size may be misleading (I Finally found something misleading
), the Earth is bigger than Mars.
I hope this was informative enough.
