It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jra
reply to post by Anjaba
I don't think those are stars. They're more likely hot pixels
Another reason I don't believe they are stars is that they are perfect little dots. There is no motion blur on any of them, but there is on the space station itself.
Originally posted by theRoboZ
reply to post by dPD89
Last one then I will go to sleep. This is a simple test in photoshop just to show why it can still be cloning.
Pure black background then add a little noise 0,2%. On a separate layer i drew some 1 pixel pencil white dots, then some 3 pixel brush white dots, then i use clone tool on them with 100% opacity (still on the same layer). then save as jpg with 50% compression. Check the result. Not 100% identical pixels and different pixelization due to compression yet they were 100% clones on the original. Imagine if the background is more complex and opacity is less than 100%.
And if you still check the original area you can see a large part with repeating background in the 3 spots.
Can anyone tell me how to embed the image here? Or it's only possible if I upload to ATS (and i can't...)
goodnight!
Edit:
Thanx exuberant1 but i tired and still got the link to external image...
[edit on 27-4-2010 by theRoboZ]
Originally posted by theRoboZ
The fact it is not pixel perfect everywhere is because, as already mentioned, they could've been cloned with different opacity so they got mixed with the original background, then the jpg compression (or re-compression) will also mangle it up.
Another interesting thing is the displacement of each cloned area is different and this makes me think it is hand made.
[edit on 27-4-2010 by theRoboZ]
Thank you for your observant eye and for notifying us.
You are right that some effort was made to make the image more appealing. Whereas NASA imagery professionals would not manipulate a star field or crop out hardware, they would possibly attempt to correct the ghosting around the target and perhaps some inadvertent cloning of some dead pixels occurred. This image was poorly exposed when it was shot so a great deal of density and contrast correction had to be performed. The raw image did not contain the dead pixels and they are not star fields as described.
NASA quit flying “secret” equipment in the late eighties when it quit conducting missions in space on behalf of the Department of Defense.
Thanks again and please write us again when you have such questions.
Mike Gentry
Media Resource Center
Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by Phage
I'm gonna do something a tad (stupid? Unbelievable?) interesting... and Somewhat disagree with you. *ducks*
I magnified the image to almost ridiculous sizes in Photoshop and looked around. I can see the Milky way faintly in the background, and the points of light all have 4 reflections at 4 points around them.
What I canNOT explain is the dupes- I abused the image as I usually do- no cuts, clones, pastes, or other obvious jiggery at all in the pic. I DID however find some solid pixels which I cannot explain (due to the fact I dont know what area on the shuttle this is shot, Brightness, ect.) I believe the solid white pixels are internal lights or camera artifacts, the ones that are diffuse are stars. Doesnt explain the 'stars' outside- unless there's something with built in camouflage. This is only my opinion, and I stand by blindfolded for the coming carnage (if any)
Sometimes, I just gotta wonder if Nasa doesn't release this stuff so people like us DO pull our hair out trying to figure out the weirdness...)