Yet Another Martian Anomaly

Sorry for the vague comment. But the colors we see from digital cameras are produced by the software programmed by the cameras engineers. In this case nobody has been to mars to produce a color palette that truly represent the colors in that environment

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Sorry for the vague comment. But the colors we see from digital cameras are produced by the software programmed by the cameras engineers. In this case nobody has been to mars to produce a color palette that truly represent the colors in that environment

We can use math and color filters that have a bandpass very similar to our cone receptors in order to produce such an image. I think scientific interests trumped postcard portraits in this case.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

The MSL (scheduled for launch next year) will carry cameras which operate in the same manner as "standard" digital cameras. Using Bayer pattern filters, they will provide full color images rather than filtered grayscale images which will need to be further processed. The Bayer filters use broadband red, green, and blue filters. The colors will be as true as those produced by the cameras used here on Earth.

reply to post by Phage


That sounds interesting. Do you think it will finally settle all this color stuff or will there be some other conspiracy about it?

(Yeah, let me guess.)

Originally posted by zorgon


So maybe the guy adjusting color densities at NASA is colorblind

No. He's not color blind. the cameras are. He isn't working with the three primary colors.
The human eye peaks at these wavelengths/colors: red=565nm with a wideband response, green=531nm with a narrower band, and blue=419nm with a narrowband peak. www.rwc.uc.edu...

On Viking the filters peaked at; red=700nm, green=550nm, blue=470nm. Red was not red but more toward infrared. Green, close but a bit on the yellow side. Blue was actually more cyan. By changing the ratios between filters adjustments can be made but it's not simply a matter of combining the images and it still is not going to be true color.

The Rovers?
L2(near IR)=750nm, L3(deep red)=670nm, L4(red)=600nm, L5(green)=530nm, L6(blue)=480nm, L7(UV)430nm. Green is pretty much green but red ain't red and blue ain't blue.

And...again. Narrow band filters. Approximations can be made. True color...no.

ok way to the right they have to be the Rover tire tracks right ?


but something tells me that this also looks like this for some reason

or is it a coincidence that the tread of the rover tires are like the Astronaut boot

This Pic of the Moon Boot Sole Tread..



Rover tracks with similar tread



Better image of Rover tracks



Never mind its just a Mirage

Just a Tire track that has sunk in the Martion ground a soft spot

as Phage explained this already and i did see it as i skipped a few post Opps
but still the Moon Boot FootPrint is alot like the Tread of the Tire on that Spirit Rover

Website link to
Strange track Overlays Interesting
RE: The strange track rover overlayswww.activeboard.com...

Yeah, Zorgon's back!!!

Love your posts!

reply to post by Phage

I first want to state that the dust which you believes colors the atmosphere is actually smaller according to the wikipedia cited paper. about 1.5 micrometers.

As seen here- www.sciencemag.org...

"Our results, combined with those from in situ measurements and other visible to infrared spectral studies, suggest that framework silicates (probably feldspar) dominate the dust mineralogy, with lesser amounts of olivine, pyroxene, amorphous material, hematite, and magnetite, and that the dust largely is the product of mechanical weathering of basaltic rocks with minor chemical alteration."

This is gathered from- www.agu.org...
Also cited in the Wikipedia.

Basalt is not red. It is black to gray. The amount of iron oxides in the atmosphere is UNREPORTED. Titanmagentite (mostly titanium) is more than half of all ferrous containing dust. Ferrous oxide represents about 45%. These figures concerning iron dust are generated from a magnetic trap which would exclude non-magnetic materials.

I do not stand corrected because there is no evidence that the dust captured selectively of a MINOR component of atmospheric dust would result in red/orange skies. In addition the coloring shifting of the land and skies on Mars are at best speculative and most likely conspiratorial in their origins.

Found this in an old post of Mike Singh's...

Its about using the filters on the Rover..

Originally posted by ArMaP
Edited to add the images.

Image created with near infrared, green and blue filters.

Image created with red, green and blue filters.

Seems to me that using the red, green and blue filters gives a pretty 'close to true color' image....

Thanks ArMaP Didn't see those before

Originally posted by zorgon
Thought this one was pretty good too, so since it is another one from Skipper might as well toss it in here. This is a tiny 'object' but bright and shiny.

Helmet like Anomaly
Spirit Panoramic Camera Sol 1526

The anomaly is found right at the bottom, center of the image...

This anomaly that looks like a discarded helmet is very reflective compared to the surrounding rocks. This item was brought to my attention in another thread on ATS, from a link to Skippers Mars Anomaly Research. Looking at his site he gives credit to the discovery to Michael Middleton of Australia. Skippers work on this anomaly can be found here: SPIRIT ROVER HEADS & STUFF Report #143

The original image posted at the top of the page is available from NASA 2P261833662EFFAY00P2298L7M1

The anomaly appears in the color version as well as several other shots in the series but the top b&w image has the clearest detail. Other images in the series can be found here: NASA Sol 1526

Everyone is so arse up heads down on the rocks and sky colour when the above is a far more worthy to discuss dont you think.

I would like to see more productive opinions on what I called C3PO head, what do you reckon Zorgon.?

Also there was a photo of simular object on the moon buried deep in Skippers archives.

reply to post by largo

Ok, so smaller particles would remain in suspension longer than larger particles, keeping the atmosphere dustier for longer.


Magnetite (as in titanmagnetite) is an iron oxide. Note that your quote makes this clear;

Titanmagentite (mostly titanium) is more than half of all ferrous containing dust. Ferrous oxide represents about 45%.

And what about the predominant material, feldspar? Depending on its composition (which in the case of Mars, is unknown) it can be red. Hematite, another red mineral found in the dust.

“Reddish-orange material deposits, which resemble mineral mantles known as desert varnish, started appearing on the tumbled flasks. Subsequent analysis of the flask material and dust has shown that the magnetite was transformed into the red mineral hematite, through a completely mechanical process without the presence of water at any stage of this process,” said Dr. Merrison.

www.universetoday.com...

The dust of Mars is red. Have you ever seen Mars? It's red.

reply to post by Phage


Going back to the first pic in the post and then the second (with the rock gone) I am retracting my earlier opinion that a Marsquake made it move downhill.

There is an obvious rectangle space where the rock was. It extends to the "left" of the rock, in the second pic. So if the rock rolled (leaving a mark where it was) this rectangle would not be visible (that far left of where the rock was.)

I am taking into account that the rover may have been in a slightly different position on the 2nd pic. The odd rectangle is too wide.

What do you think?

Uh Oh! Is this thread about 'moving' stones or the 'true color' of Mars? Anyway, though I don't believe NASA is 'fudging' colors on purpose, I wonder why they had to saturate this one before publication?


Photograph taken by Spirit shown during a NASA press conference.
NASA/JPL

And here's the one they published....


NASA/JPL image PIA 05036

reply to post by Phage


So all that red stuff lying around is iron oxide huh? Nice red iron oxide?

So Mars is a planet that has RUSTED...

Rust is a general term for a series of iron oxides. Colloquially, the term is applied to red oxides, formed by the reaction of iron and oxygen in the presence of water or air moisture.

Wiki

Must be all those ancient structures decayed and fell to rust... those dust devils blowing that rust all over the planet

Guess all that water got used up making rust

maybe... maybe not

reply to post by zorgon


I might be ignorant, but I don't understand this issue about colour..

Surely with NASA spending how many $millions on this project, someone would have thought getting a true colour pic of Mars may have been a good idea..

Either send a capable camera or atleast have a "known" colour chart they could adjust to correct colour...

I just find it mind blowing that we send a rocket all that way, have Rovers running around the planet for years,

and yet still aint sure what freckin colour the place is.

Originally posted by CynicalM
I just find it mind blowing that we send a rocket all that way, have Rovers running around the planet for years,
and yet still aint sure what freckin colour the place is.

CM, sometimes scientists may appear to be making poor decisions (and sometimes they do!)

But more often than not, there is method in the madness. First, as pointed out above, they did indeed include color test targets so that the images could be colour balanced to some extent, so if you dig around you will find some.

Now bear in mind what these missions are for. Capturing earth-like images, and determining the exact color of the ground/sky? Nope. In fact I would ask you why you think that is highly important, and what a 'true colour' image (not that such a thing exists) would actually tell you? Does it tell you anything about the wind effects? The geology? The actual composition of the rocks/sand/dust? It helps a little there, but any geologist will tell you it isn't as useful as you might think - that's why they take samples, do spectrographic and chemical analyses, etc..

There is the further issue of technology - sadly, digital sensors that have the required longevity and ability to stand the conditions on Mars are few and far between - it is easiest and cheapest to use proven monochrome sensors and separate filters. But standard RGB filters, as used by cameras here to give 'pleasantly' colour balanced images in earthly scenes, are not very selective - scientists prefer to use narrow bandpass filters as they can learn much more about the scenes, inc beyond the visible spectrum.

You might like to do some research on bee vision. Is that not true colour? It is for a bee..

Anyway, to summarise, true colour is not only impossible, it's highly overrated...

reply to post by CHRLZ


You know what?
I would bet that 80% of the worlds population would really like to know what Mars "REALLY" looks like..

The 0.01% of the population that are scientists got what they wanted..

Would it have been too much to ask if they were to add a camera (even if its lifespan was only one shot) that could take an "actual" photo of what Mars "really" looked like ??

It certainly would have answered many questions and arguments raised on this thread..
So obviously some are interested...Hell, I'm a taxpayer..

Originally posted by CynicalM
Would it have been too much to ask if they were to add a camera (even if its lifespan was only one shot) that could take an "actual" photo of what Mars "really" looked like ??

Thing is, these EXIST. Despite what people are trying to push here.. If you are genuinely interested, and want the views of someone who should have a pretty good idea of how to go about this, start here:
www.donaldedavis.com...
which leads to:
www.donaldedavis.com...

If you are seeking more technical info, try here:
areo.info...

but it's not very friendly for helping you find the best images. Scientists can be like that - it's all about the data, not the aesthetics...

reply to post by CHRLZ

but it's not very friendly for helping you find the best images. Scientists can be like that - it's all about the data, not the aesthetics...

And yet we had all them pretty pictures of earth, taken from the moon..

Or were they artificially coloured also?? Please don't say that....

Originally posted by CynicalM
Would it have been too much to ask if they were to add a camera (even if its lifespan was only one shot) that could take an "actual" photo of what Mars "really" looked like ??

It certainly would have answered many questions and arguments raised on this thread..
So obviously some are interested...Hell, I'm a taxpayer..

The on board cameras were for scientific purposes and not for identifying picnic spots on Mars!!
And remember, the thrust to weight ratio for the Delta II rockets used then was about 70. Therefore for every pound of camera you would require additional propellant for producing thrust that would add to the weight of the rocket which in turn would require more propellant.....So that spiral of thrust and weight is not worth the effort of having a nice RGB video cam on board!

QED!