posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:39 PM
Originally posted by zorgon
Well your definition of 'true colour" is too picky. I remember all those long battles of color in the Mars rover threads. Yet even you managed to
produce images that were close to what we would expect to see if we were there
That's because I am too picky myself.
To me, true colour means exactly that, colours that would look the same as if we were looking at the original.
But when I can see images taken on certain days that shows a blue glowing crater in Earth based telescopes, and I see that same crater in
Clementine and Galileo also blue glowing, and I see reports from astronomers dating back to 1554 in NASA's own records that tell me that crater is
blue glowing, and I read a report from the Apollo 11 crew that is looking down on that crater and it is blue glowing....
The problem with
images that are not true colour is that although some areas look the same other areas look different, so while the blue glow may look similar the
surrounding area may look different, so only part of the image represents the true look of that whole area.
(I think my explanation only mixed things more than they already were
Then I say that NASA turning the moon grayscale to perpetuate a colorless moon myth is BOGUS. Whether or not it is precisely 'true colour" to
meet your standards of the term is irrelevant. At least with color you can see differences that are interesting... details that are lost in the
grayscale. Which is why they did it in color in the first place
Obviously, removing colour is worse than having colours that are not the
true colours, as you said, there's a reason for their use of colours.
But it's not my standards of what "true colour" means, whenever we mix wavelengths beyond the ones we can see or you remove visible wavelengths,
you will never get true colour, with the possible exception of some special conditions.
For example... this is the magnetic anomaly on Farside at Mare Marginis... almost opposite Reiner Gamma. With grayscale you would not see the
fantastic features of this area. You would deprive people of such views because your a stickler on 'true colour"? Besides USGS said these are what
we would see 'slightly enhanced by UV light' which is after all what UV/VIS (Ultra violet/Visible) is all about
I wouldn't deprive anyone
of what they asked for, but as what was asked was "true colour images" I only spoke about that.
And that's that "enhanced by UV light" that makes it look different from what we would see without the UV light.
Just one more nit-picking, when you say "this is the magnetic anomaly" I suppose you mean "this is the area of the magnetic anomaly", seeing that
the magnetic anomaly is not visible and does not correspond exactly to any visible shape on the Moon, right?
HEY!! I think I will revive that Aristarchus thread I have some new photos taken by a French astronomer that caught the crater glowing
New photos are always welcome.