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.

 

On the Moon - just some boulders or is this a Lunar Rover ?

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wisper
 


Thanks for that image, it shows how things on the ground may appear as having a shadow that wasn't there, as shadows appear slightly brighter and surrounded by a darker line that, in some cases, looks like a shadow of the shadow, etc.

That's why I do not trust (or care) for filters and/or effects, they only change the original, and the original is the closest thing we have to the reality (as far as we know, obviously
).




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Where are the tracks or impact point of this object? Interesting none the less..



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
This is my first post on this forum but I have been reading the posts on ATS for years.

This boulder anomaly is interesting and I note that there is a lot of speculation as to what the object could be. I recently had a look at the Alien Anomalies forum and there is a thread on the same topic with some outstanding images. Although, I think the images may have been enhanced still, they are very good and give some clues as to what the anomaly really is. Here are the links to the images.

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...

If I am not mistaken by viewing the images, it would appear that an extraterrestrial civilisation has been on the moon for a long time and they are definitely not astronauts from this planet.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


They didn't give me credit for the find in that forum.

I mean, it ain't hard.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Negative image turned 90s



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wisper
reply to post by flexy123
 


Not a filter an effect added to the image, there is boulders/rocks there but also taller objects surrounding the rocks maybe taller rocks?
edit on 15-8-2011 by wisper because: (no reason given)


i meant "filter" as in "effect", aka useable in paint shop/photo shop.

It's some sort of "erode" filter but i would really like to reproduce this one, eg. using it in a matrix so i can use the same filter. That's why i asked. (The erode filter in PSP doesnt produce the exact same effect and i'd really make one like that)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Although, I think the images may have been enhanced still, they are very good and give some clues as to what the anomaly really is. Here are the links to the images.
The images had some parts enhanced while some parts disappeared, most people like to change the contrast to make things look different, but that only destroys part of the original information in the image.

In this case, those images were so altered that they became useless.

Edit: it looks like they used something that gave a 3D look at the whole image...
edit on 17/8/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by wisper
reply to post by flexy123
 


Not a filter an effect added to the image, there is boulders/rocks there but also taller objects surrounding the rocks maybe taller rocks?
edit on 15-8-2011 by wisper because: (no reason given)


i meant "filter" as in "effect", aka useable in paint shop/photo shop.

It's some sort of "erode" filter but i would really like to reproduce this one, eg. using it in a matrix so i can use the same filter. That's why i asked. (The erode filter in PSP doesnt produce the exact same effect and i'd really make one like that)


Psp

Effects> Artistic Effects> Colored Edges



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Maybe these images will clear up the 'boulder' theory.

The links to the two images show the original image and the processed version. You may be surprised at what can be observed.

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


How can an image from a different place clear things up?

Could you please explain what you meant with your post? Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Yes ArMaP, you are quite correct, this is a different location but there are similarities with the objects in the other image.

The original images give the impression that some form of rock or boulder has rolled along the surface. Closer inspection of the processed image reveals that the anomalous objects are not rocks or boulders but some form of large structure. In fact, the whole area would appear to be artificial as if at some time terraforming of the surface has taken place. Even some of the craters showing in the processed image appear to be artificial structures.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Hahaha, nice one.

You've got the lingo down pat, but I think your assessments are a bit too far from the mark. You need to tone things down a bit.

Terraforming the moon? Artificial craters?

C'mon. Who you kidding?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Yes those moon inhabitants are carelessly untidy to leave their garbage out like that in full view, imaging what the dark side of the moon must look like.

Or imagine an alien conversation that goes like; we've traveled thousands of light years only to have our mission thwarted once again by those dastardly artificial craters!



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Thanks for clarifying it.


The processed image only removed some of detail, merging areas that had only small differences in brightness into one, making the image worse than it was originally, so we cannot use it as a reference for anything.

It's like putting a dirty glass in front of a photo to see it better.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I am sorry ArMaP, I cannot agree with you that the processed image is like putting a dirty glass in front of a photo. I feel the processed image has much improved edge definition and also displays what is really on the surface. The original images do not show the detail that is 'hidden' under the 'mush'. They only show the larger surface objects which is not useful to make an in-depth analysis.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I feel the processed image has much improved edge definition and also displays what is really on the surface..


This isn't something you 'feel' it something where you look at numbers then make up your mind.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I still say the filter is just a fancy image enhancement short of using any real DEM data. It's arbitrarily picking areas of the image to enhance or hide that may not depict the true elevation differences.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I am sorry ArMaP, I cannot agree with you that the processed image is like putting a dirty glass in front of a photo.
No problems.



I feel the processed image has much improved edge definition and also displays what is really on the surface.
The processed image has improved edge definition (up to a point) but that's because the fine details were destroyed, like in a bad photocopy.

Look at the animation below. You can see that all that we see on the processed image is already there (if you cannot see it then you probably don't have you monitor correctly adjusted), but many things in the original image disappeared in the processed version.




The original images do not show the detail that is 'hidden' under the 'mush'. They only show the larger surface objects which is not useful to make an in-depth analysis.
The processed image (regardless of the process) cannot show any more than it was already on the original photo, if it shows then it's because it was the processing that created it, so it's an image artefact and not part of the original.

You can see that the brighter areas in the original look blurred because the higher contrast makes those areas look overexposed, so areas that were light grey were turned into white. The same thing happens with the darker areas, that turned into black instead of some shades of dark grey.

If we count the number of different shades of grey in the original and in the processed image, they are both 256, but when we choose small areas, the processed image has always less shades of grey than the original, and that means that the processing removed those shades of grey, so the image cannot be better than the original, even if it looks better to some people, because some information is missing.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
There is a process whereby the darker areas are lightened so that detail in the 'shadow' can be seen. Now, this obviously loses some of the information in the lighter areas due to the adjustment of RGB value. There are two (probably more) ways of doing this - one takes the values from RGB 0-30 as an example and then adds 30 to each one. This makes the darker areas lighter but still retains the 'distance' between the pixel values. The other way is to make the difference between the pixel values greater so that the difference between pixels next to each other 30 & 31 for example would become 30 & 41 perhaps. This last method makes the contrast better and at the same time you can lift the darker objects out of the 'shadow'.

Having said that, anything we do is going to change the original but - the space agency has done that anyway before we got it, so there is no knowing what the 'original' showed. Probably a LOT more detail.

Using the argument that the 'original' must not be changed so that we are looking at the 'pure' image, is absolutely worthless when we do not have ANY of the originals to work with.

I have it on good authority from someone who designed pieces of the MER rover, that the originals are gigabytes of data in size.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
The other way is to make the difference between the pixel values greater so that the difference between pixels next to each other 30 & 31 for example would become 30 & 41 perhaps. This last method makes the contrast better and at the same time you can lift the darker objects out of the 'shadow'.
That's what they call "stretching", and is usually done with both the darker and brighter value.

If the darker value is, for example, 30, and the brighter 240, the numbers are "stretched" to 0 and 255, so the more subtle differences become more noticeable.


Having said that, anything we do is going to change the original but - the space agency has done that anyway before we got it, so there is no knowing what the 'original' showed. Probably a LOT more detail.
Usually, the space agencies also work with more bits than the ones on the final image, at least 12, usually 16.


Using the argument that the 'original' must not be changed so that we are looking at the 'pure' image, is absolutely worthless when we do not have ANY of the originals to work with.
We do have as close to the originals as possible in many cases, so there's no need to mess with second hand images (many times saved as JPEG, which loses some quality each time they are saved).


I have it on good authority from someone who designed pieces of the MER rover, that the originals are gigabytes of data in size.
That's not possible, the photos from the rovers are 1024 x 1024 pixels images, so even at 16 bits (I think that they are sent to Earth as 12 bit images) they wouldn't be more than 2 MB images.

The format used for doing the processing in most cases (the cube format used by ISIS) really adds more information or it can have several layers, one for each filter, and those can really go up to several gigabytes, I have used some of those myself.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join