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 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)
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by arianna
I feel the processed image has much improved edge definition and also displays what is really on the surface..
No problems.
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.
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.
I feel the processed image has much improved edge definition and also displays what is really on the surface.
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.
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.
That's what they call "stretching", and is usually done with both the darker and brighter value.
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'.
Usually, the space agencies also work with more bits than the ones on the final image, at least 12, usually 16.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I have it on good authority from someone who designed pieces of the MER rover, that the originals are gigabytes of data in size.