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 Exuberant1
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?
Originally posted by arianna
Are the large black areas shadows or large areas of water (lakes)?
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by arianna
Are the large black areas shadows or large areas of water (lakes)?
They are shadows.
*Also, the resolution is not so good on that image. If you want to get into the lunar anomaly game you are going to have to step it up a notch and start using better images.
That's the problem, when an image is too "flat" we cannot do a thing to make it better, we can only make it even "flatter" or make it look completely different, and that's no good either.
Originally posted by arianna
What I have been researcing for many years is the lunar surface detail which can only be realized by a degree of enhancement as most of the downloaded images are too 'flat' and washed-out to discern any recognizable detail.
It's not an improvement, the image has lost lots of detail in the middle tones, making it look like a photocopy.
Originally posted by arianna
The first is a crop from the original tiff image and the second is the same image processed and shadow-enhanced. I believe members will find the second image is a vast improvement on the original.
Why do you say that, what makes you think those are built structures and not natural features?
The view shows that there are many built structures on the lunar surface at this location.
We are informed that the lunar atmosphere is almost non-existent.
We are informed that the lunar atmosphere cannot support life.
I'm not surprised that you see those things, also, I am not surprised that you consider the second image closer to reality after losing so much detail, but I don't understand how you can look at the original and the processed image and see the processed image as better than the original.
If this is the case, how is it possible that huge numbers of buildings and other structures were able to be constructed on the lunar surface? Members may be quite surprised at what can be observed in the second image. The second image shows that the large objects, referred to as 'boulders' and the associated 'boulder trails', are not what they appear to be as can be observed in the first image.
That's better, this way you get a better view of the texture of the ground, with less loss of detail than with the previous process, but you still lose some data.
Originally posted by arianna
I have used a different process for this image.
My mindset is that I haven't seen anything special on the Moon, and I don't see any special reason to expect to see one, but I am still looking.
Unfortunately, I am finding that many people are of the mind-set that there's nothing on the moon because they are being told there's nothing on the moon.
I have seen many people with that idea that some process can get more detail from the photo than the original has, and, obviously, they are wrong. We can get better views of some areas while making it worse for others, and by joining several images that were processed in different ways we can get images that show an overall better image. We can also use several images from the same area to make what they call a "super-resolution" (if I'm not mistaken) version, as if the original resolution was bigger than it was (although the results are not as good as I would like), or use specific processes for specific situations, like the image below, that shows the process I use to enhance the (apparent) texture of an image (although I know that I am losing some "reality" by using that process).
The camera captures a great deal of fine detail that lays 'hidden' in many of the images until such time as it can revealed by other photographic processes.
I think you did, with so many highlighted areas it's a little difficult to understand what we are supposed to see.
Originally posted by arianna
You may feel that I have overdone the highlighting but there is a reason for doing so which is to emphasize just how much detail is apparent in such a small area of terrain.