posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:42 AM
Originally posted by OrionHunterX
So, does Mars look actually like this instead of the gory red color they always show?
Why NASA has to indulge in this is apparently because the red filter on the cameras is supposed to enhance resolution and also reduce the amount of
data required to be transmitted back to Earth.
Regarding the data transfer ... confining an image to a single channel or ensuring the values stored in the image are in a certain range will make an
image smaller. Without seeing the entire workflow I wouldn't be able to run through the entire process but it's not abnormal.
Regarding the actual color of mars:
The issue with this 'color correction' theory is you can actually whack a blue filter in front of a camera and rebalance the image to a more natural
look. It isn't difficult, and doesn't require much technical knowledge what so ever.
So it *could* be possible that NASA are lying about the color of mars, however rebalancing an image to look like it's on Earth doesn't tell us this
at all. A reddish atmosphere is no different from processing a shot with a bad filter, or poor coloured lighting. The sun and atmosphere of Mars are
producing a light source in the same way as a red light or filter might. It's the equivolent of rotating a hue slider.
If you want to test this yourself, go to a hardware store or similar and pick up some RED LEDs. Point them at something, turn them on and take a
photo. Take the photo into photoshop and balance the image manually (hue), levels etc ... I could give you a tutorial on it if you wanted.
Bottom line is, the colors might be a bit different but the issue is the result will be the same regardless of the conspiracy theory. I don't
understand the slow disclosure concept etiher. Would anyone care that much if the sky on Mars was a bit more blue? I'd find it fascinating but I
wouldn't think I was being lied to.