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.

 

Yet Another Martian Anomaly

page: 15
85
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Here is a good article I agree with about using targets to set the White Balance, but it does not go into the technical workings.

Link

Here is an article on that goes into that more. It makes what appears white to you in the light you are shooting in, appear white in the photo which should give a good image, even on Mars.

Link

White balance (WB) is the process of removing unrealistic color casts, so that objects which appear white in person are rendered white in your photo.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

Yes, but if it is not an "unrealistic" color cast (if the red cast is really there)...
What then?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinunleaded
I too fail to see why NASA should take conspiracy theorists serious. But then again they are paying me $20/hour to do this. My main objective is to crush people's SCI-FI fantasy and inject disinformation in this forum


Please scan your ID and black out the personal details and post it here for us would you please?

Or was that sarcasm?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm not a technical expert on the inner workings of my equipment, but I know it works. Whether I shoot in the red cast of a sunset, the gold glow of the magic hour or in bright sunlight, if I set the White Balance using a target, the photo looks like the scene looked in person. Those folks at Nikon seem to produce wonderful products and I can only assume other high end equipment is equally as capable. I only use Nikon Bodies with Nikor Lenses. I assume the cast of the white target tells the camera the color of the light, whether it be a warm or cold color and it adjusts based on that.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SL55T0T0
This thread is retarded mods please close it asap

....and you joined in



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

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 CHRLZ
Did you actually visit those sites and READ what was said and look at what was presented?


Clementine... had several cameras...


High-Resolution Camera This 1.1-kg camera operates at visible wavelengths (0.415 to 0.75 µm) with silicon CCD technology combined with a compact, lightweight image intensifier. A six-position, spectral filter wheel provided imagery in discrete spectral bands.



Ultraviolet/Visible Camera To provide reliable, solid-state, cost-effective imaging in the nearultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared regions of the spectrum (from 0.3 to 1.0 µm), LLNL designed and built a medium-resolution, 0.426-kg camera that uses silicon charge-coupled device (CCD) technology. For Clementine, this camera was combined with a sixposition spectral filter wheel for remote sensing applications and, specifically, for mineral typing studies of the Moon.


So Clementine HAD the ability to take high res pictures of the Earth and the moon in color in the VISIBLE spectrums as well as the UV/VIS ones

www.llnl.gov...

This is the Earth from so far away...



But when NASA shows us the image they like to add a little artistic flare to it, like over saturate the Earth and paste it into one of a black and white moon...

Way to go NASA to show us your stuff




True color, false color, red Mars, black and white, moon orange Venus all designed to confuse us all... Show me just one picture that proves the surface of Venus looks LAVA orange that hasn't been colorized by NASA





edit on 14-9-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


So Clementine HAD the ability to take high res pictures of the Earth and the moon in color in the VISIBLE spectrums as well as the UV/VIS ones.

No.

These were the filters on the UV/VIS camera
415nm cw (plus-or-minus 20 nm bw)
750nm (plus-or-minus 5)
900nm (plus-or-minus 10)
950nm (plus-or-minus 15)
1000nm (plus-or-minus 15)
400 to 950 broad band

Exactly one of the specific filters was in the visible range (the 415, just barely, deep violet). The broadband filter covered the visible range but, since the sensors only respond to brightness, there was no color information provided, it was a grayscale image. Turning an image from the broadband filter to color would be the equivalent of Ted Turner colorizing B&W movies and the results are just as dreadful.







edit on 9/14/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
No.


No??? did you even read that link to LLNL? I am talking about the high res camera and you give me the specs for the SECOND UV/VIS camera

Dang getting desperate eh?


try again... and
you already got 2 stars for that! no wonder ya have so many



High-Resolution Camera This 1.1-kg camera operates at visible wavelengths (0.415 to 0.75 µm) with silicon CCD technology combined with a compact, lightweight image intensifier. A six-position, spectral filter wheel provided imagery in discrete spectral bands.


www.llnl.gov...

That clips is BEFORE the part of the UV/VIS camera, unless your claim is that LLNL is LYING when they say This 1.1-kg camera operates at visible wavelengths

I'm done on the color... you obviously have a vested interest in keeping the party line intact


Lemme see if I can find some new stuff on Mars



edit on 14-9-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
That's what you said about China's Chang-E 1, India's Chandrayaan-1, Japan's SELENE

Don't you know the SELENE Data Archive?

It's English is a little strange, but they have the photos taken by all Jaxa's cameras.

The videos are owned by NHK, so they are not available on that site.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP

You mean the site that has..

Plase refer KAGUYA_product_list_public (PDF file) to confirm the kind of KAGUYA data.

Well I would much rather see the ones that AREN'T public



Seems little point in looking over preselected images from so long ago



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
I am talking about the high res camera

Both cameras "operated" at visual wavelengths.
Both cameras returned grayscale information from a limited filter suite.

Specifications for the Focal Plane Array of the HiRes camera:

Focal Plane Array:
See UV/Visible specifications in Table 1, except arrays are not UV
enhanced.


Specifications for the Camera electronics of the HiRes camera:

See UV/Visible specifications in Table 1

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The only differences between the cameras were that the HiRes camera had;
A telescopic lens
An image intensifier
A different batch of extremely narrow band filters; not blue, not green, and not red. Not "true color" capable.


edit on 9/14/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
OK, so without having to read through 15 pages in which the last is bitching about cameras, what was the conclusion of the OP? Did that rock actually move on it's own or not?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, so without having to read through 15 pages in which the last is bitching about cameras, what was the conclusion of the OP? Did that rock actually move on it's own or not?


Yes, it did. In fact, we should start gluing posters around that have a picture saying, "Have you seen me?"

I'll call the milk company and get it on as many cartons as I can.


edit on 9/14/2010 by EnlightenUp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


OK, so if it had in fact moved... wtf is it?

It looks like a rock. When and where was the pic taken? Could it be a weather phenomenon, or is it definitely some form of life?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 

Scientists, geologists in particular, do not care about "correct and original" colors. There is much more to be learned about mineralogy by using particular wavelengths, most of which are not visible to the human eye. That is why the imagers use those wavelengths.

The cameras are not there to provide pretty pictures with "true colors". They are there to provide scientific data.

Is sunlight on the surface of Mars "white"? Sunlight filtered through that dust would have a red tinge.


Uh oh! Here we go again! I agree with most of what you're saying but then there are a few really good images from JPL that seemingly conform to wavelengths compatible to human perception without what you mention as red tinge due to the ubiquitous red dust. Like this one....



Now, undoubtedly there are greens and blues and Earth-like colors in that image. What happened to the red? That's probably because this image was taken at mid day with max illumination and at a time when there were no dust storms around! Or perhaps the head of JPL's image processing lab thought of applying his mind to this one!


photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...


edit on 15-9-2010 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 

Not a good example. It is a false color image which includes one infrared filter.

This view combines separate images taken through Pancam filters centered on wavelengths of 753 nanometers, 535 nanometers and 432 nanometers. It is presented in a false-color stretch to bring out subtle color differences in the scene.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

If you look at the high resolution version you'll notice that the colors on the sundial are completely out of whack. It is not even close.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
If you look at the high resolution version you'll notice that the colors on the sundial are completely out of whack. It is not even close.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Agreed! That image sucks! So what I played around with was some layman's 'color correction' techniques(!) for fun. Here's a crop of the image you linked to. Blue sand??



Ok, let's do a global color correction to turn sand to the natural color of sand we see on Earth and this is what turns up....



Ice/snow/frost around that depression? Hmmmm...Looks like a conspiracy by JPL to hide the truth!!





edit on 15-9-2010 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by Phage
If you look at the high resolution version you'll notice that the colors on the sundial are completely out of whack. It is not even close.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Agreed! That image sucks! So what I played around with was some layman's 'color correction' techniques(!) for fun. Here's a crop of the image you linked to. Blue sand??



Ok, let's do a global color correction to turn sand to the natural color of sand we see on Earth and this is what turns up....



Ice/snow/frost around that depression? Hmmmm...Looks like a conspiracy by JPL to hide the truth!!





edit on 15-9-2010 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



What you are about to see is a Sandmarie, Tiny Mars humanoid, in photo above the blue sand or water. Enlarge or use a magnifying glass to see the Sandmarie. To find the Sandmarie the screeners have phased it out but not all the way. Start from left top 20% of photo scan right until you come to the letter G or could be the number 6 scan right from there until you come to the other number 6 not quite half way across the photo. Bingo this is your Sandmarie you can see the face, hairdo, eyes, nose, mouth, chin, a claw for the right hand of the standing straight up Sandmarie and either a swirl looking staff or braid coming down near the left side of face of the Sandmarie. Take your time you will eventually see the vague faded life form in photo. We have been lied to. ^Y^






edit on 15-9-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, so without having to read through 15 pages in which the last is bitching about cameras, what was the conclusion of the OP? Did that rock actually move on it's own or not?



I will answer Sirnex

Parallax error and probe movement, and the more interesting photos dont worry about as Phage and Zorgon are to concerned about locking swords at the moment.

Most of us have familys and work commitments so dont be put off not being on the ball in here, the ATS heroes will not put the time in replying to your post.






edit on 15/9/10 by Bob Down Under because: # up!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Moving rocks- right- that's the subject- correct?
I saw this You Tube Video where this guy found 3 or 4 rocks on Mars with...heads and feet!
I know, I Know- but one of them is in your Original Post.

Move the slider to the right and you will see a large rock with a wide and dark vertical stripe.
Head- body-feet!

I hope you read my previous theory's retraction about Mars-quakes. (due to a wide rectangle) left in the place where the rock in question was. You might then understand why I would suggest this (walking rock theory)



edit on 15-9-2010 by Tribble because: To add video--




top topics



 
85
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join