Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Wires on mars....

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 
Wouldn't it be easier to just have the rover demolish all these areas and just be done with this whole mess?




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by eriktheawful
 
Wouldn't it be easier to just have the rover demolish all these areas and just be done with this whole mess?



Heh, actually no.

When I hit a fire ant nest yesterday with my lawn mower, it threw fire ants all over the place (very PO'ed fire ants btw)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
eriktheawful, just to let you know I took a second look at your image and it is very very interesting too. I shall get back to you later after I have made a full examination of the content.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Here are the images that I wrote about above.

The image was captured by Opportunity on the 28th July 2009 in the Meridiani Planum region.

The width of the rock is approximately 600mm from left to right.











Image reference: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Original image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
edit on 7-9-2012 by arianna because: text



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I have found the images that relate to the removal of compression artifacts. The left image is the original view with compression artifacts showing, the center image shows the artifacts removed and the right image shows the improved image. A larger version is available at the Direct link below.

i228.photobucket.com...


Arianna, you are comedy gold.


First, you claim to have removed the compression artifacts but then you save it as a .JPG with compression artifacts... hahaha

Second, you didn't remove any compression artifacts! All you did was make the image blurry with some type of Gaussian blur filter for the middle image, and then you used a sharpen filter on the blurry image to get the right image. At least, I can get the same results as you did by doing that.

All you have done was completely obscure the pixels in the image until the compression artifacts become blurry. The resulting image is completely computer generated.

In reality, since the compression artifacts have already obscured the source image, and all you have done is made those obscurities blurry. ...and because you think the image "looks better", you actually believe the resulting image "is better"...





edit on 7-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That looks like an image from an electron microscope...

...but what do I know?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by eriktheawful
 
Wouldn't it be easier to just have the rover demolish all these areas and just be done with this whole mess?



Heh, actually no.

When I hit a fire ant nest yesterday with my lawn mower, it threw fire ants all over the place (very PO'ed fire ants btw)
I have a feeling these tiny beings are a peacefull art based culture, so they may not know what hit them. Plus the rover is a pretty formidable war machine.
edit on 7-9-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


If you are such an 'expert' on image processing then show everyone visiting the thread where the compression artifacts are in the right-hand section. The program used to remove the artifacts was a special beta version of an application produced by a university which at the time I was testing.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


The image you provided was in .JPG format and has compression artifacts all over it.
You should probably provide the same image in a .PNG format BEFORE asking me to find compression artifacts in an image littered with compression artifacts.


With that said, are you not comprehending what I have been saying? Let me try to explain it in layman's terms since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about...

Lossy compression causes artifacts because it LOSSES DATA. The only real way to remove compression artifacts is to RESTORE THE LOST DATA. Unless you have the original uncompressed image, or the data straight from the camera, there is no way to restore the lost data to remove the artifacts. There is NO WAY to remove the compression artifacts.

All you (or your silly software) is doing, is smoothing the pixels to hide the compression artifacts! The lossy compression had already obscured the image, and all you are doing is smoothing the obscurities!

The only artifact removing software you have is for aesthetics! It is not removing the artifacts, it is simply smoothing the image until the artifacts are too blurry to recognize.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


The block of three images that I provided above is in .jpg format as you have rightly noted. At the time I believe there was no lossless version available. I have provided the three images side-by-side to show members that the compression artifacts seen in the left-hand image have were removed as shown in the right-hand image.

If you can show me where the artifacts are in the right-hand image I am more than willing to entertain your reply. If you cannot show me the artifacts in the right-hand image then there is no need for the discussion to continue on the subject. May I suggest that if you wish to continue the discussion related to the removal of image artifacts that a seperate thread is started in the relevant category.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
To eriktheawful,

As a matter of interest, do you have a sharper version of the image you posted above?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 




May I suggest that if you wish to continue the discussion related to the removal of image artifacts that a seperate thread is started in the relevant category.

Are you serious? You started this.


These images are png versions and there are no compression artifacts on the image, just the detail on the surface.


If you believe it's off topic to correct mistakes then stop derailing the thread by posting factual errors.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


If you don't mind could you take the time to answer a very basic question posed by my 11 year old son who is also very fascinated by this?

If there is a tiny civilization on mars, where is all of the water?
...and what do they eat?
edit on 8-9-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
To eriktheawful,

As a matter of interest, do you have a sharper version of the image you posted above?


Sharper as in more in focus? No I'm afraid I do not.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Rock. Phage 1 - Flysolo 0



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
If you can show me where the artifacts are in the right-hand image I am more than willing to entertain your reply. If you cannot show me the artifacts in the right-hand image then there is no need for the discussion to continue on the subject.


If you can not see the compression artifacts your self, then I guess this proves you don't know anything about compression artifacts...



I highlighted the compression artifacts in your .JPG in red. The red lines follow the "quilting" or "checkerboarding" artifacts that are the result of block-based quantization.

If a source image has these compression artifacts, there is no way to remove the effect that the compression has had on the pixel data. All you can do is digitally "smooth" the lines with a Gaussian blur type filter which completely obscures the original data even more, and the end result is a completely computer generated image.

Besides the blocky compression artifacts, what you (or your silly software) has done to the middle and right image is completely blend all the pixel data together which created MORE artifacts of a different type. It transformed the pixels into arrays of gradients.

For example, your image took the original pixel data like this...


...and turned it into this fake pixel data like this...


As you can see, the edges between each original pixel (colored square) have been smoothed to a point where you can't see them anymore. That is a common technique to hide blocky compression artifacts. But also, in the process,it has completely created fake pixel data that didn't exist in the first place. It created gradients that didn't exist, shadows that didn't exist, and color blends that didn't exist, and soft round features that didn't exist, and highlights that didn't exist. Basically, the entire image is completely fake.

Your software has only one purpose, aesthetics, not image forensics.
edit on 8-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


An interesting presentation and I understand everything you have written but most people viewing are not interested in image forensics. Most members and visitors just want to view clearer .jpg images without the compression artefacts showing all over the view.

Now perhaps you will be kind enough to show everyone where the artefacts are on the right-hand image that I presented above without resampling the view.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
An interesting presentation and I understand everything you have written but most people viewing are not interested in image forensics. Most members and visitors just want to view clearer .jpg images without the compression artefacts showing all over the view.


You simply are not understanding the point.

You are taking original images (already compressed), manipulating them (claiming to make them clearer), and then claiming there are tiny structures and proof of living creatures in said manipulated images. That is like taking an image, adding an alien to it, then claiming the image is proof of aliens.


You must understand that a lot of the things you think you see in the images are compression artifacts. You THINK you are making the image "clearer" but what you really are doing is manipulating the images and completely smudging the original data. So anything you point to in the image after you manipulated it to be "clearer" is FAKE.



Originally posted by arianna
Now perhaps you will be kind enough to show everyone where the artefacts are on the right-hand image that I presented above without resampling the view.


Technically I already did!



The image above is taken from the very top right corner of your image.

I used nearest-neighbor interpolation also known as pixel resize to scale the image. That means ALL THE ORIGINAL PIXEL DATA IS PRESENT. All I did was make each pixel bigger, so you are seeing the original image just larger. So the artifacts you see are present in the original image...

You prove over and over that you don't know what you are talking about.
edit on 8-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by arianna
 


If you don't mind could you take the time to answer a very basic question posed by my 11 year old son who is also very fascinated by this?

If there is a tiny civilization on mars, where is all of the water?
...and what do they eat?
edit on 8-9-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Your son has asked some interesting questions. I suspect that most of the water on Mars is under the surface as for what the tiny people eat, I have no idea but that is food for thought (excuse the pun).



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by arianna
 




May I suggest that if you wish to continue the discussion related to the removal of image artifacts that a seperate thread is started in the relevant category.

Are you serious? You started this.


These images are png versions and there are no compression artifacts on the image, just the detail on the surface.


If you believe it's off topic to correct mistakes then stop derailing the thread by posting factual errors.



What did I start and what are the factual errors? I don't know if you have noticed but it is others who are trying to take issue with the images I posted in an attempt to derail the thread. I stated that the png versions I posted have no artefacts on them which is perfectly correct.

It's about time we all returned the OP's topic.

The question is, are there any wires protruding from the large object? I say the large rock-looking object is a large tiny structure, but what do you say?





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join