Why are the LROC images so lousy?, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times


reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 04:46 AM by jra
reply to post by mixmix


From my understanding, the amount of noise varies depending on the temperature of the semiconductors. There is a team of several people who try to forecast the temperature of the CCD days in advance so that they can try to get the best image possible, but it's never perfect.

where are the raw image files ?


There has been a pre-release of NAC images in a PDS EDR format if that's what you're wanting.

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

But unfortunately the entire LROC site is down right now, so it won't work, but hopefully it will be back soon.


reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 08:03 AM by mixmix
reply to post by jra




But unfortunately the entire LROC site is down right now, so it won't work, but hopefully it will be back soon.


Thanks I will wait for LRO website is up.


For the temperature noise explanation, I think it will be more isotropic.
I'n not a LRO CCD expert.
If you zoom the image, you can see noise in bright area.
With about square pattern
strange.
The NAC or WAC camera is designed to take picture inside dark crater so
noise in dark area for a $$$ camera is surprizing.

LRO images are still the best.
But colored pictures is good too.

OP any idea or I'm ignored ?



reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 05:47 AM by mixmix
reply to post by jra




where are the raw image files ? There has been a pre-release of NAC images in a PDS EDR format if that's what you're wanting. lroc.sese.asu.edu...


Sorry jra,
but the IMG files from your links are B&W pictures.
It's not raw color images.
Or I'm wrong somewhere?

LRO site is back.


reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 06:08 PM by masterp
The highest resolution commercial satellite, as I found it on google, has a resolution of 41 cm / pixel: www.sciencedaily.com...

According to this: hypertextbook.com...

military satellites can have up to 5 cm resolution.

So, until we clearly see the lunar vehicle in a photograph clearly, let us remain skeptic.


reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 09:10 PM by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by Phage


You still using that old chestnut?
Come on Phage,give people some credit.

There are many places which are NO FLY ZONES,which on Google Earth you can still zoom right down on and view clearly objects the same size as the lander.

[edit on 27/2/10 by gallifreyan medic]


reply posted on 1-3-2010 @ 04:04 AM by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by Saint Exupery


Here are 2 links for information of No fly/Restricted zones.

WIKI

FAA

More information of places around the world can I'm sure be found on Google.
And on GE you can see what can be seen within these areas.

Also here is a link to a place that's a little hard for Google to take pics.
Zoom out for where it is.

Where could it be ???

So,lucky they use satellites isn't it.

[edit on 1/3/10 by gallifreyan medic]


reply posted on 2-6-2011 @ 05:00 PM by Cassius666
Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Phage


Nice APOLLOgetic thread, Phage.

Just admit that the pictures are crap, and that they are useless.

NASA wanted to put an end to the speculation, and they come out with this?

Is this the best they can at this moment?

Google earth can zoom in much further than that.

edit to add. So, it's beyond me why you would compare the lunar picture to a pic of Rio, with that kind of zoom.

I can show pics of Earth that are zoomed in much further, where you can clearly make out , for instance, pick up trucks.

You make it look like those lunar pics are the best we can do, wich I don't believe.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Point of No Return]


Ill take a guess and say the sattelites that can resolve a pickup truck are purpose built and largaer than the LROC, with more space dedicated to the capture equipment. The best sattelites in orbit can resolve a license plate. The LROC had probably to accomodate an array of instruments, so they werent able to fit one of the more advanced cameras they have.


reply posted on 2-6-2011 @ 08:08 PM by Illustronic
Originally posted by masterp
The highest resolution commercial satellite, as I found it on google, has a resolution of 41 cm / pixel: www.sciencedaily.com...

According to this: hypertextbook.com...

military satellites can have up to 5 cm resolution.

So, until we clearly see the lunar vehicle in a photograph clearly, let us remain skeptic.


There's enough data from the LRO and SELENE to verify images and footprints on the moon from 1969-1972 could not have been faked. Now I suppose we'll go into the realm that it was robots and not man that made those signatures, huh.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^