What's going on in Copernicus crater?

Originally posted by arianna
What i was really hoping for was that Photoshop users would have a try at enhancing the image containing the so-called boulder trails.

As you wrote "the image at the beginning of the thread" that's what I used.

The image I enhanced shows the trails to be something else.

Not to me, to me they still look like boulder trails as boulder trails.

Did you use the 'burn' tool all over the image once or more than once?

Yes, but I ran out of patience after some minutes.

Also, did you compensate for brightness losses after each procedure?

No, as you didn't mention that on your post and I didn't remember that part. But as you can see in the images I posted above, any time we change the brightness we lose more detail, so we keep on destroying data with the brightness change, create new (not related to the original) data with the burn tool, destroy data with the brightness change, etc.

The end result will show some enhanced data and some data created by the burn algorithm, and that's why I think this method is not good to get an overall view of an area, although it may work with the brighter areas.

Originally posted by ArMaP
The image I enhanced shows the trails to be something else.

Not to me, to me they still look like boulder trails as boulder trails.

Incorrect thread, my apologies but I still maintain the trails are not what they appear in the original. If only I could go there and check I am sure I would find they are not trails but built structures.

Did you use the 'burn' tool all over the image once or more than once?

Yes, but I ran out of patience after some minutes.

Yes I know what you mean. I have spent ages enhancing some of the images. A lot of patience is demanded to produce results.

Also, did you compensate for brightness losses after each procedure?

No, as you didn't mention that on your post and I didn't remember that part. But as you can see in the images I posted above, any time we change the brightness we lose more detail, so we keep on destroying data with the brightness change, create new (not related to the original) data with the burn tool, destroy data with the brightness change, etc.

Sorry, I omitted that supplementary information from the above post.

reply to post by arianna


So, no comments about the changes in the number of shades of grey your process creates?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

So, no comments about the changes in the number of shades of grey your process creates?

The difference I believe is 23 shades of gray - not 13. The only explanation I can offer is that after enhancing I transferred the file to Paintshop Pro for finalizing. I prefer PSP for this as some of the functions are more subtle than those in Photoshop. As you have said previously if data is destroyed during the enhancement process it cannot be reinstated unless PSP is interpreting the data differently than it is in Photoshop.

Originally posted by arianna
The difference I believe is 23 shades of gray - not 13.

You're right, for some reason, yesterday I was losing "10" in every count, the first difference is 21, not eleven.

The only explanation I can offer is that after enhancing I transferred the file to Paintshop Pro for finalizing.

Maybe I didn't explain it as I should have, because, apparently, you haven't understood what I meant.

The 20+ increase in brightness in Photoshop destroyed 21 shades of grey; the burn tool "invented" their own 23 shades of grey to make the image look better; successive changes in brightness will destroy more data, while successive use of the burn tool will create more "invented" data.

I has nothing to do with transferring the image to Paint Shop Pro, as I was only working with Photoshop.

You can try for yourself, download that Colour Count plugin and count the colours between each step of your process, to see what is happening to the image.

PS: the old versions of PSP were very good, I have a 1999 version that I still use, for basic image work is very good and fast.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by ArMaP

 

ArMaP, I'm pleased to see that you have given it a try on the Copernicus image. What i was really hoping for was that Photoshop users would have a try at enhancing the image containing the so-called boulder trails. The image I enhanced shows the trails to be something else.

Did you use the 'burn' tool all over the image once or more than once?

Also, did you compensate for brightness losses after each procedure?

They are not so called boulder trails THEY ARE BOULDER TRAILS.

Here is a close up of a trail.



Light direction is from bottom up THE ROCK shows a nice shadow !

The crater to its left shows a shadow (opposite side to the rock)

The Trail leading up to the rock shows shadows on the same side as the crater so guess what that means those are INDENTATIONS in the surface like the CRATERS!! (CAUSED by the rolling rocks/boulders)

You can't argue with that so don't EVEN try!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


The so-called boulders and boulder trails are discussed on another thread not on this one.

I think a little clarification is required as to exactly what the 'dodge' and 'burn' tools do in Photoshop.

These tools can be used in different ways.

The 'dodge' tool lightens pixels and the 'burn' tool darkens pixels. It is similar to using levels and curves. The difference is that the changes are being made to a selected area of an image and not the entire view.

It can also be thought of as a way of adjusting the brightness level of pixels in the selected area. Using the 'burn' tool does not destroy data. It only changes the brightness value of the pixels within the selected area.

On the other hand, the process cannot 'invent' data. The process cannot add pixels that weren't there is the first place.

The tools can be applied to improve an image in different ways. The exposure of a photo can be improved to 'bring out' detail. The process can also be used for the creative use of highlights and shadows and also to create impact.

All that changes using these particular tools is the brightness intensity of the pixels within the area selected.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The so-called boulders and boulder trails are discussed on another thread not on this one.

Are you THICK you mention the trails on the post on here I replied to, you really need to get those eyes checked don't you!

Originally posted by arianna
Using the 'burn' tool does not destroy data. It only changes the brightness value of the pixels within the selected area.

If it changes the brightness value of two pixels that originally had different values to a common values then it destroyed data, because we had two different values and now we have only one, without the possibility of returning to the original values.

On the other hand, the process cannot 'invent' data. The process cannot add pixels that weren't there is the first place.

It doesn't add pixels, it "invents" the values of the pixels.

As you said, it's the same as using the levels tool, but the difference is that in the levels tool you can see a representation of how many pixels have a specific value and you can adjust the levels without destroying any data. Obviously, you can also destroy data with the levels tool, if you ignore the maximum and minimum values.

The tools can be applied to improve an image in different ways. The exposure of a photo can be improved to 'bring out' detail. The process can also be used for the creative use of highlights and shadows and also to create impact.

But can you improve the image in the overexposed areas and in the underexposed areas with the same application of one tool? What I have been saying since the beginning is that you cannot get more detail from the brighter and darker areas with the same process, so if you bring out more detail in the brighter areas you are destroying it in the darker areas.

All that changes using these particular tools is the brightness intensity of the pixels within the area selected.

Yes, and the extreme examples would be turning an image into a completely black or completely white image; you can do it just by changing the brightness of the pixels.

Doesn't that destroy data?

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP, Why do you think you know more than the people who designed and wrote the program for Photoshop? I have to ask the following. Are you a teacher/lecturer or possibly, a programmer working for Adobe? I get the impression you may possibly be one or the other as your approach to this particular subject is too precise and critical. Remember, this is a forum not a university campus. We have to cater for members and visitors that are not aware of the highly technical aspects of photographic processing.

The problem with forums such as this one is that many people think they know more than everyone else about certain subjects. I have to admit that at times I fall into this category. Of course, there will always be certain subjects where some people will be more knowledgeable than others, especially if they have had a university education in specific fields.

If there are two pixels side-by-side, say one has a value of 158 and the other has a value of 236, and the amount of dodge or burn applied to each is exactly the same then the new value of each pixel will be changed by the same amount.

As I have already said, I use the burn tool to 'bring out' data. If some of the data gets darkened by too much that is something that I am prepared to live with as long as the end result is reasonably acceptable and shows the detail that cannot be normally seen in the original image.

BTW, the scientist I contacted is working in the field of astrobiology.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The so-called boulders and boulder trails are discussed on another thread not on this one.

Are you THICK you mention the trails on the post on here I replied to, you really need to get those eyes checked don't you!

No, I'm not thick although you may possibly be.

The reference to the so-called boulder trails was a slip-up on my part and should not have been mentioned in the thread. Here is the link to that particular thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We have to cater for members and visitors that are not aware of the highly technical aspects of photographic processing.

It's not that difficult. If you change a value, you change a value. If i have 3 distinct values (1, 2, 3) and I run it through a process to get (1,1,3), I now have 2 distinct values. Now if I run it through another process to add back the 3rd value, I may get (1,4,3). The "4" representing Huge, Tiny Martian Civilizations or HTMCs.

I have very little image processing experience but I am a programmer and have experience with other types of data processing. This is very common when working with digital information. For instance, when you convert an audio WAV file to MP3, the data gets compressed meaning it removes information to shrink the file size. Now if I take that MP3 and convert it back to a WAV for CD burning, the process will ADD back the missing data. Now the first time you hear the end result you may not notice but if you repeat the process a few time, you will hear all kinds of "swishy" noises....or possibly aliens.

I also have a LOT of experience in psychology and in the mental health field and have experimented excessively with hallucinogens.

I still want to know how it is that you have come to the conclusion that these Moon and Martian civilizations that you (AND ONLY YOU) perceive are NOT the product of your own mental activity. That they just are not is not really an answer. What I am looking for is something like this."Image A is not an alien face house but Image is B is because image A has these qualities and Image B has these qualities".

...So if you want to convert me or at least give your findings some type of thought that maybe it's possible, then please answer. Otherwise I will be checking this thread to learn about image processing from posts by that Armpit guy and continuing my psych studies.

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, Why do you think you know more than the people who designed and wrote the program for Photoshop?

I don't think that I know more than the people that wrote Photoshop, and for that to even be a possibility than it would mean that you had talked with the people that wrote Photoshop and they had told you that what I said was wrong.

I have to ask the following. Are you a teacher/lecturer or possibly, a programmer working for Adobe? I get the impression you may possibly be one or the other as your approach to this particular subject is too precise and critical. Remember, this is a forum not a university campus. We have to cater for members and visitors that are not aware of the highly technical aspects of photographic processing.

I'm not a teacher, I am a self-taught programmer, and although I never worked for Adobe I know how to work with images (I am trying to make a search engine that looks for images similar to the ones we "feed" it). As for comparing this (or any other) forum to an university campus, I cannot really know, as I only finished high-school and never went to the university.

Of course, there will always be certain subjects where some people will be more knowledgeable than others, especially if they have had a university education in specific fields.

And it's that difference between our levels of knowledge in so many different subjects that turns a forum like this into a special entity (when everybody is working in the same direction) that has almost the sum of all the knowledge of all the elements participating in a discussion.

That gives us all an opportunity to learn something, but for that we should accept that we may be wrong and ready to try a different path whenever we are shown that we are going in the wrong direction.

If there are two pixels side-by-side, say one has a value of 158 and the other has a value of 236, and the amount of dodge or burn applied to each is exactly the same then the new value of each pixel will be changed by the same amount.

Really? Is that how the algorithm works? I tried it with the burn tool set to shadows and a 100% exposure to make it easier and faster, and what happened was that the 158 pixel was turned into 148 and the 236 value remained as 236. A second pass of the burn tool turned the 148 value into 135, while the 236 value remained the same. A third pass turned the 135 into 117, while the 236 remained at 236. From the numbers above we can see that you were wrong in your understanding of how the burn (in this case) tool works. Not only it didn't affect the brighter value (236), probably because it's not considered a shadow, but the darker the colour the more effect the burn tool had.

As I have already said, I use the burn tool to 'bring out' data. If some of the data gets darkened by too much that is something that I am prepared to live with as long as the end result is reasonably acceptable and shows the detail that cannot be normally seen in the original image.

No problems with that, but then you should remember that the darker areas most likely had some data destroyed in the process, so you lost detail in the darker areas.

BTW, the scientist I contacted is working in the field of astrobiology.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I also have a LOT of experience in psychology and in the mental health field and have experimented excessively with hallucinogens.

I still want to know how it is that you have come to the conclusion that these Moon and Martian civilizations that you (AND ONLY YOU) perceive are NOT the product of your own mental activity.

visual cortex +1

perhaps the un-anthropomorphisation of the random noise in the pareidoliac chaos can set the record straight

www.tripzine.com...

I stumbled across this while researching a 3D image of Tyco from JAXA/Selene images today. This is a NASA 3D of the central peak of Copernicus crater (Anaglyph) and how a real 3D should look like. (glasses are preferred).

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

And the original image in black and white.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Major difference in professional and amateur techniques in image processing.
Checked back through the thread and did not see these images posted unless I missed them.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I tried it with the burn tool set to shadows and a 100% exposure to make it easier and faster, and what happened was that the 158 pixel was turned into 148 and the 236 value remained as 236. A second pass of the burn tool turned the 148 value into 135, while the 236 value remained the same. A third pass turned the 135 into 117, while the 236 remained at 236. From the numbers above we can see that you were wrong in your understanding of how the burn (in this case) tool works. Not only it didn't affect the brighter value (236), probably because it's not considered a shadow, but the darker the colour the more effect the burn tool had.

I was not really incorrect as the type of burn tool I was referring to was a global type of tool that would increment or decrement the pixel values by the same amount.

The burn tool selections in Photoshop are local functions. They cover three ranges namely highlights, midtones and shadows. There is a seperate algorithm for each operation but a degree of overlap is built into the algorithm for each of the three tools.

The person I contacted about the lunar views has replied and has asked me to forward more images so the difference between what is showing in the originals and the enhanced images must have generated some interest in scientific circles.

Originally posted by arianna
had.
I was not really incorrect as the type of burn tool I was referring to was a global type of tool that would increment or decrement the pixel values by the same amount.

The burn tool selections in Photoshop are local functions. They cover three ranges namely highlights, midtones and shadows. There is a seperate algorithm for each operation but a degree of overlap is built into the algorithm for each of the three tools.

Can you dumb it down a bit?...please

Originally posted by arianna
I was not really incorrect as the type of burn tool I was referring to was a global type of tool that would increment or decrement the pixel values by the same amount.

Was that the type of tool you used?

Why is there even a debate here? There is obviously something of interest in that crater, and we've sent missions out for quite a bit less interesting / important reasons.

Why haven't we sent men there to see what's going on? I don't understand the bloated and unnecessary discourse you're all having here. It's a trivial and pointless debate. We all know there is something there. Are we simply afraid to admit it and go have a look?