What lies in Copernicus crater.....

dont really see anything new here. The image on John Lears thread seems to be better quality imo.

These images have been around for quite a while. So ask yourself this question before you start looking for things in the 1.7gb image thats soon to be release.

Why would Nasa release such a high res image for everyone to pick over? Answer: because they would have gone over the image and airbrushed out what they didnt want you to see. They could even change things to make you see what they want you to see in those images.

So much has been made of the images we have on johns thread that i wouldnt be suprised if nasa has used that thread as a means of finding potential "hot spots" obfuscating any potential confirmation of surface artifacts.

I want to see the images myself ... but 1.7gb file ! not many people will be able to open that in one application.



just my 2 cents .....

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Also how are we going to view the 1 gig image file?? that will take forever to load in PS or windowz.

It depends, I once loaded a 1,2 GB file in Photoshop on a computer with only 768MB of memory and Windows Vista. It took "only" around two minutes and the computer was still usable.

But now I have a new computer with 3GB, so I am awaiting for that image, it could be a nice present.

Originally posted by scepticsRus
dont really see anything new here. The image on John Lears thread seems to be better quality imo.

Yes. Only the contrast seems less extreme, making some details more visible in the shadows.

I want to see the images myself ... but 1.7gb file ! not many people will be able to open that in one application.

That will be the uncompressed version, the actual Zoomify version will probably be available to view the huge image without downloading it.

Zorgon said-

Hmmm yes well... since that is the photo most discussed here in a 200 page plus thread it does seem interesting that that one was picked... but I suppose you will say its because it was the "picture of the century"

Time Magazine gave it that moniker back when it was first published.
National Geographic called it "stunning"
Siskel and Ebert both gave it a thumbs up.

It is also interesting that it was stated originally it would be difficult to process these pictures and yet they can pick one out so easily.

It IS difficult to process them, details of which are covered in the LA Times article-
www.latimes.com...

As for finding that particular frame, NASA thoughtfully employed a centuries-old technique for organizing things.......they numbered them.

Paranoia? How so? But do try to bear in mind that ATS IS a conspiracy site... ?

Point taken Zorgon. (If that is your real name....)

what would there be here if there were no conspiracies to track?

More room for lolcats and porn?
Just guessing..

Later I will post a scan from our printed copy of this spot...

Does your copy include the calibration data? The little greyscales, lines and numbers at one end of the the strips. (each strip is referred to as a "framelet")
i218.photobucket.com...
And if the resolution on your copy is high enough, you can see the tiny, rectangular registration marks that lie at the edge of each framelet side.

So, if you wanted to see a crater on framelet 52, around the 45th registration mark (counting up from the callibration set,) then I would know exactly where you were looking.
The photo you've posted appears to be over six framelets across. Narrow it down for me a bit and I'll see what I can do.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by SpaceMax]

Originally posted by scepticsRus

Why would Nasa release such a high res image for everyone to pick over? Answer: because they would have gone over the image and airbrushed out what they didnt want you to see. They could even change things to make you see what they want you to see in those images.

Awful lot of trouble considering it would have been much easier to never tell you there was a Lunar Orbiter in the first place.

Make you see what you want to see?
Well here's my vote-
farm4.static.flickr.com...

Originally posted by Jimbowsk
Have their been any high-res pics released from Kaguya yet? I've had a quick browse but can't find much, and I would've thought there'd been pictures released by now. I even thought we may've gotten a look at the original landing site/flag, but I guess not. Silly me

By not finding much I mean i've found a few, but nothing really with close up detail like i'd expect.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Jimbowsk]

Camera resolution is 10m per pixel so you wont see the flag or the landers! It's not good enough.

So where's the 1.7 gig pic then NASA? I'm guessing you guys have a lot of airbrushing with photoshop to do on such a huge file ... must be some good stuff there if you're delaying the photo?

Sheesh - why even tell us about it if you ain't putting it up yet eh?

Perhaps you're reading ATS to see what the rabble will make of it eh?

btw can a 1.7 gig image file even be opened? What proggy?

wZn

I have looked at the links and pics and I really dont see anything too interesting. I can see where some might think there is a face but could it just be the way the rocks and shadows are hitting it? IDK.. Just wondering.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


It's here, I am already downloading it, and if everything goes as it should I will have in 35 minutes.

Photoshop can open files like that with no problems, if you computer has enough memory and disk space, I have done it before with a JPEG2000 file.

I have to agree with the general consensus on here, if there was anything of interest on the Copernicus picture there is no way that NASA would release it. I don't understand what everyone is getting excited about.

reply to post by zorgon


The same image from this new version.



It's too big to post inside the thread, and, as anyone can see, it lacks some "beauty treatment".

reply to post by ArMaP


I just had a look. The resolution is about 2.4 times better than in John Lear's scan, but more megapixels and 16 bits depth do not help uncover more details.

Here is the "garage" area, at 1:1 zoom factor:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/314497c9f32d.gif[/atsimg]

Resized:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d98f43890d62.gif[/atsimg]

John Lear's scan:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2951b71f4ece.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by nablator


Yes, when we resize the images to the size of John Lear's images then we see that there is less "fuzziness", but that does not mean more detail.

Also, as most (if not all) people only have monitors capable of showing 256 levels of grey (or less for some LCD screens) instead of the 65,536 of a 16 bit image, we do not gain much by having a 16 bit image.

One interesting thing is that when I opened the TIFF file on Photoshop it has several layers for the several framelets.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yes, not much better quality overall. Framelets are kept in layers, nice to be able to check the overlayed area at the edge.

After some "cosmetic" treatment (but I am not a professional, as anyone can see).

reply to post by ArMaP


It is best to have this unadulterated.

Pretty much any monitor built in the last few years can handle a 16 bit image I think. My laptop could handle this but I have a slow connection at work. When I get home later to a fast connection it will be nice to see this before one of the less than gifted phoney, errrrrrrr I mean photo manipulaters gets their hands on it and removes detail using levels or contrast or whatever filter they employ.

I have a program from Nikon that is good with 16 bit and I can maybe enhance the right way by faking an HDR image and perhaps pull out more detail. There will be way more detail than you can see on your monitor.

I trust this far more than I would something like marsanomaly dot whatever and their using filters until the evidence fits the theory

Anyone with Photoshop should be able to open this no problem. Just wait it out and don't get impatient if you are on a weak machine. PS will wake back up and open it eventually. Then chop it up into smaller files.

Another safe method to make the detail better without altering anything is to use a Sepia filter while leaving the luminosity intact. It will make detail stand out without loosing data by altering levels or adjusting contrast and leave that Filter Gallery alone. Adding or removing detail won't help.

woah 2.2 gig! - NASA you said it was gonna be only 1.7 gig -what's up with that?

But yeah thanks for this - even if we know you've done your damage to hide what's there eh?

How about some 2.2 gig size photos of the far side - you know , where Alex Collier shows us all those bases in his moon and Mars lectures from 95?

Does anyone know the slides Collier shows by number?

While I have you attention - why not come clean and show us the real juice, after all you know you want to

love

wZn

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I have to agree with the general consensus on here, if there was anything of interest on the Copernicus picture there is no way that NASA would release it. I don't understand what everyone is getting excited about.

Why ASSUME there was anything to hide in the first place!
Seeing as they are a few mapping missions going on at the moment and still to be done maybe once they are complete all the Apollo hoax ,secret moonbases and alien building BULLCOOKIES will stop but it wont because you guys will just say the info is faked or altered because the truth would be to DULL for you.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
It is best to have this unadulterated.

That is why I posted first an unaltered version, only cropped (15735 by 21827 pixels would be too much for the ATS Media Portal ).

Pretty much any monitor built in the last few years can handle a 16 bit image I think.

All CRT monitors and all high end LCD monitors can show 24 bit images, but what we are talking about is 16 bit per channel instead of 8 bits per channel, making it possible to go from black (with a value of 0) to white in 65,536 steps instead of the 256 for 8 bits per channel.

I have a program from Nikon that is good with 16 bit and I can maybe enhance the right way by faking an HDR image and perhaps pull out more detail. There will be way more detail than you can see on your monitor.

That is what I said, it would have (as this original possibly has) more detail than we can see, unless someone has a monitor that can show 281,474,976,710,656 instead of the common 16,777,216.

Another safe method to make the detail better without altering anything is to use a Sepia filter while leaving the luminosity intact. It will make detail stand out without loosing data by altering levels or adjusting contrast and leave that Filter Gallery alone. Adding or removing detail won't help.

Unfortunately that does not work with me, I do not see any change from shades of grey to shades of any colour.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Why ASSUME there was anything to hide in the first place!
Seeing as they are a few mapping missions going on at the moment and still to be done maybe once they are complete all the Apollo hoax ,secret moonbases and alien building BULLCOOKIES will stop but it wont because you guys will just say the info is faked or altered because the truth would be to DULL for you.

There's lots of Apollo images which have conclusively been shown to have been tampered with. If they removed anything of interest from those why would they now release a photograph which spoils all their hard work and lets the cat out of the bag? The only "BULLCOOKIES" (whatever they are?) I know are those who still cling onto their fading dream that NASA has revealled everything to them. You know, the kind of guy who walks around with a NASA mesh backed cap on all day dreaming of being The Right Stuff.