India's Chandrayaan Blasts Off To The Moon!

Originally posted by ArMaP
If you need help downloading them just say,

The problem is that the source won't allow mass d'l ing and it takes three screens to get to each picture so it will take a lot of mouse clicks to get through tree thousand images.

No its not the same source you linked... I already got those

I have written the source to see if I can get them en mass. I will keep you posted when I need mouse button help. Let me see what I can do via request first

reply to post by zorgon


Three screens to each picture? That looks like a conspiracy.

If you need "mouse button help" just say, Monday is a holiday so this weekend has one more free day for me (all weekends should be like this).

reply to post by ArMaP


I am replying to myself to answer some doubts I had and add some things.


About this image:
The filters used were L2, L5 and L7, corresponding to the wavelengths 753 nm, 535 nm and 432 nm, which correspond to infrared, green and violet (not ultraviolet), so, as I said, the filters were not the right ones for a near true colour image but I was wrong about thinking it was ultraviolet (the Rovers do not have ultraviolet filters on the panoramic cameras), it was the infrared that was changing the colours the most.

I asked if NASA had said that the photo was true colour, and what they said about that photo was that it was "a false-color stretch", which may be considered right or wrong, depending on our point of view.

But in that press release they also presented this photo,
and they said that it was "approximately true-color", which is not true.

Even if they used the radiometrically corrected images, those images do not show the visible light, so it is not approximately true colour.

Luckily, the images of the sundial are available for this Sol (1368) and with the filters we need, L4, L5 and L6, and by using them we get this image,
that we can see has the right colours. Even using the radiometrically corrected images (that show what the scene looked like when it was photographed), the result does not look like the one on that panorama from which the sundial on the first photo was taken.

Although it looks like it is covered by a red "mist", the image shows that the colours are the right ones, the blue and the green patches have the right colours.

If we use the radiometrically corrected images but without taking into account the radiometric data, this is what we get, and even if this is not what the scene looked like, to me it looks like the most probable colours of the objects if they were here on Earth and not "painted" red by the dust in the air (that is supposed to be the cause for the red "mist").


So, the image before the last should be what NASA should consider the nearest to true colour, never an image where blue and green and transformed into pink and orange.

Now this image.

As I thought, this image was altered (but not by NASA) for a specific purpose, the original is probably this one.

And as a way of seeing what happens when we use the wrong filters, this is what this image would look if the filters were the same as in the first image on this post, infrared, green and violet.


So, as we can see, whenever a photo of the sundial shows a pink patch where the blue patch should be that means that they used the L2 (infrared) filter instead of the L4 (red, but considering the wavelength, more orange than red) filter.

As for the Clementine photos, I am still looking.

Hi another new video released by ISRO:

mms://msrv2.wstream.net/isro_archive/TMC02.wmv

or at their website:

www.isro.org...


[edit on 7-12-2008 by contradunce]

reply to post by contradunce


Isn't that the same video as in this post?

Originally posted by ArMaP
I am replying to myself to answer some doubts I had and add some things.

You know talking to one self is a sign of a scientific mind but answering your self... well its time to see the funny men with the white lab coats and rubber rooms



I think what you have with the color thingy is what Freud would call an 'obsession'


...

[edit on 7-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by ArMaP
As for the Clementine photos, I am still looking.

I will get you some numbers to call and addresses to write to..

As with Jim Garvin, your foreign location seems to get better results when asking questions

Hi Armap! It's different. In the ISRO page there are 2 TMC videos from Chandrayaan.

Originally posted by zorgon
You know talking to one self is a sign of a scientific mind but answering your self... well its time to see the funny men with the white lab coats and rubber rooms

I had to post that, I could not hide it from myself.

I think what you have with the color thingy is what Freud would call an 'obsession'

Freud? He his too over rated, what he did any old woman from any small village can tell you, the only difference is that they do not use fancy Greek and Latin names for the things, they call them by their real names.

And no, it's not an obsession, while people keep on posting things that make me think that they haven't understood (yet) the difference between "true colour", "approximate true colour", "close to real colour" and "visible light" I will keep on posting what I know and what I can to make them understand.

But if I am mistaken and everybody understands what those things are then it is me the one who does not understand why people keep mixing "true colour" with "visible light", "close to real colour" and other subjective expressions or I haven't understood them (yet).

reply to post by contradunce


Yes, and I have both, the last one since November 26.

Originally posted by ArMaP
And no, it's not an obsession, while people keep on posting things that make me think that they haven't understood (yet) the difference between "true colour", "approximate true colour", "close to real colour" and "visible light" I will keep on posting what I know and what I can to make them understand.

Okay lets do this...

YOU give me an 'official' name for what color the average person sees when looking a scenery on Earth...

It is true that the majority of people view colors in the visible spectrum of light

In this photo



I see a Dark Blue (typical out here) Sky, Green trees, Grey with brown hills and aqua colored water of various shade..

Now how would you like me to describe this image? I would say "Normal color" because it matches what I see out west here... yes the sky really is that blue in the high desert..

It is obviously taken using 'visible light'

So if you would define a term that describes this for you, I will use that term so you don't get confused

Now if someone showed me a picture like this I would say its 'true color' If that picture was taken on Mars I would still say its 'true color'

Correct me if I am wrong


On topic Anything new from the latest moon probe?

reply to post by zorgon


OK, using that photo as an example, it looks like it was taken using the whole visible light spectrum, because the colours are the ones I know those things have (although here in Portugal the sky is usually a little brighter than that).

As the colours look the same ones that I know, I suppose that the photo is a true colour photo, where the colour reproduction is as close to the original as possible.

The only problem I have is when these names are used in different ways.

Saying that a photo was taken using visible light is not the same as saying that it was taken using the whole visible light spectrum, that is why the photos from HiRISE, although taken with a Red and a Green+Blue filter are not true colour, although they were taken in the visible range, the whole range was used but not in a way that can reproduce faithfully the colours, the fact that they joined two colours that we see as separate colours (and that we use as primary components to create other colours) spoils the possibility of seeing the colours as they were.

So, to me, visible light means the whole spectrum, like any photo we take with a common camera

True colour is a classification of the colour reproduction, so for a photo for which we have images from the Red, Green and Blue channel that would mean a RGB reproduction, but if it is a RGB reproduction of a Red, Green and Ultraviolet then it can not be true colour (see the PS bellow).

Approximate true colour is when the reproduction is known to be impossible but it's adjusted to bring it closer to the truth, like in the HiRISE images, where they use the Green+Blue channel in a different way to create a synthetic Blue.

I hope I have explained it in an understandable way, and I thank you for trying to find a common ground about this subject.

PS: I do not have any camera that can see ultraviolet light, but using an ultraviolet led I made a small experiment: I took a photo of an ink bottle with the ultraviolet light (the photo was almost monochromatic), turned it to greyscale and I used instead of the blue channel to create a RGB image using R, G and UV images, creating an approximate true colour made with visible and ultraviolet light (like some Clementine photos), and this was the result.



Even if the colours look a bit strange (I don't know if they look strange to you, they look strange to me because I know the original bottle) they look like the whole colour spectrum is present, and it may be considered a true colour image by those that do not know that it is not a true colour reproduction.

This is how the bottle really looks, when photographed with a RGB digital camera and reproduced as a RGB image.



PPS: it's interesting to see that some white areas are more white in the photo with UV light instead of the blue, that is probably because some white materials (like photocopy paper, for example) are very bright under a UV light. I suppose the same may happen with the Infrared light and some other colours, but I have no way of testing it.

Clicking the images show the full size photos.

On topic, no news about Chandrayaan-1, even the "new" video was an old (almost two weeks old) video.

reply to post by ArMaP


To illustrate a bit more; here is a representation of the visible light filters used on the Spirit Rover

These are the only colors that are used to created the "true color" images. As you can see, compared to the full visible spectrum, there is a lot of color missing.

The L1 filter is clear but since no color data is transmitted images taken with it are just black and white. None of the other filters use visible light wavelengths.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by zorgon

Now if someone showed me a picture like this I would say its 'true color' If that picture was taken on Mars I would still say its 'true color'

Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong!!! Because if you'd have showed that pic to the 'scientifically inclined' up here, and said that it was from Mars, you would have been hauled over the coals for it!!

In any case that question is hypothetical as such a picture would have been brutalized to show it as a dirty brown. Like Mars is supposed to be! A rust brown - like this:



Water? Where's it gone? Oh yeah, it was there a billion years ago!

Cheers!

Originally posted by ArMaP
No news about Chandrayaan-1, even the "new" video was an old (almost two weeks old) video.

Yeah! 15 Nov of the year of our Lord 2008!

And Darn! I didn't see any Moon bases or Hoagland's glass structures so far! Did you?

Originally posted by ArMaP
On topic, no news about Chandrayaan-1, even the "new" video was an old (almost two weeks old) video.

DAGNABBIT Another Kaguya/Change-1 already



Okay then we have some time...

Now then if you have a sample can of that spray can on your desk... and I show you a photo of it from mars that looks like your first sample... would it not be reasonable to take that first image and adjust it so that it matches the sample on your desk and thus gives you what ever else is in the picture 'true color'?

And is that not the purpose of putting the color wheel on the Rover in the first place so we have a way to adjust that color?


If I adjust the Mars photos on a given day to match what the sundial shows and match that to what it looks like on Earth, can I not be reasonable sure that if I was standing on Mars this is what my eyes would see?



...


[edit on 9-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by mikesingh
And Darn! I didn't see any Moon bases or Hoagland's glass structures so far!

Did you?

Okay so that ship cost 50 million right? So how many members we got here?

How about an ATS Moonship? Bet that would get the rating soaring here...

Then no more nonsense. And since your already suited up... and by the looks of your picture you are immune to any more space hazards I nominate you for the pilot seat.

And we can reduce cost... don't need all them fancy schmancy gadgets and silly flag impactors (though SO might go for the ATS logo dropped on the Moon ) All we need is a good camera






[edit on 9-12-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Whoa there Zorgon. Now you are making WAYYY too much sense!

The primary purpose to the color verification tabs being on the rover sundial was for precisely the reason you stated. In fact, there is a project for schoolkids here on Earth that is related to the monitoring of the rover sundial, where students from around the world can look at PANCAM images from the rover and track the Sun's movement around the dial (for a class project). On the official website that is related to this NASA-sanctioned "Mission To Mars" project, they explain to schoolchildren everywhere why the color bars are there.

Scientists will also use the Pancam images of the sundial to calibrate or adjust images from Mars. They will use the colored blocks in the corners of the sundial to calibrate the color in images of the martian landscape. That means you'll see Mars in its true colors.
athena.cornell.edu...

Now, NASA wouldn't lie to schoolkids, would they?

Incidentally, this was supposed to be the very same reason that the Apollo moonwalkers used a gnomon with a vertical color bar attached to it's forward leg. According to NASA's Apollo Lunar Sample Tool Catalog, the painted scale on the gnomon was to enable "a more accurate determination of rock and soil colors by comparison".

LUNAR SAMPLE TOOL CATALOG (Pg 39 of the PDF references the gnomon)
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Also, let's keep in mind that it is ABSURDLY easy for NASA to simply alter the PANCAM imagery so that the color bars on the rover sundial appear any damn color or shade they want them to. Of course, NASA has proven to be far to honest to ever agree to follow that type of misinformation agenda, so I am just mentioning that in a purely hypothetical context.

Cheers!

Originally posted by zorgon
How about an ATS Moonship? And since your already suited up... and by the looks of your picture you are immune to any more space hazards I nominate you for the pilot seat.

Damn! I should thank you for my sexy lookin' avataar! Remember that's what happened when I got short circuited in one of your tin-cans destined for the Moon! Lost everything except my goddamn teeth!

And we can reduce cost... don't need all them fancy schmancy gadgets and silly flag impactors (though SO might go for the ATS logo dropped on the Moon)

Great idea! SO could contribute a million dollars for an ATS ad on the Moon! This could be specially designed for them thar aliens. Nothing like out-of-this-world publicity, what?

Cheers!


[edit on 9-12-2008 by mikesingh]