Wires on mars....

page: 18
18
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 




Do you also walk along rocky bars along rivers and creeks and find millions of "tiny civilizations" on those rocks too? (and no, I'm not talking bacteria, but the smokestack producing kind you talk of.)

I was going to post earlier that I've seen a few of these micro-civilizations on Earth rocks.

If they were there, I have a feeling the EPA would have put a stop to those smoke-emitting stacks!
edit on 9-9-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Then you should make contact with the software people at Adobe,

I'm sure they would like to hear from you about the removal of artefacts is being delusional.


....you just don't get it.


Any software, or person(s), or company that claims it can remove compression artifacts is only talking cosmetically. They don't actually remove the artifacts, they only manipulate the image to hide the artifacts.

Like this guy for example:
www.youtube.com...

He is not actually removing the artifacts. He is just manipulating the image to hide the artifacts.

You know what compression is, right? Compression is used to reduce the size of data.

With computer files and other sensitive data where every bit needs to be perfect, you need lossless compression algorithms that don't lose any data during the compression. So when you DECOMPRESS the data you end up with an exact replica of the original uncompressed data.

There are many methods to losslessly compress data, but most do the following; Find parts of the data that are identical, save only one of the identical parts as a definition, then replace all of the identical parts with a pointer to the definition. That way you save space because you don't have duplicate data. When the file is decompressed, the pointers are replaced with their definitions, and the data is restored.

With images and videos, sounds and music, some bits can be modified and or completely removed and it wouldn't matter because most human ears and eyes would hardly notice. So lossy compression can be used, which actually modifies and or completely removes data that is unnecessary. With lossy compression you CAN NOT DECOMPRESS the data and end up with an exact replica of the original uncompressed data because some data was lost!

There are many lossy compression methods, but most do the following; Find parts of the data that are very similar but not identical, and near each other. For example the color black (0,0,0) and a very dark grey (3,3,3). Then replace one or the other so they are identical. So in this case, turn dark grey to black because you can hardly see the difference. Essentially, that grey pixel is lost forever. Then, proceed with normal lossless compression described above. This method "reduces the amount of unique colors", which essentially reduces the amount of definitions and pointers needed. It is what causes a lot of the blotchy areas you see in compressed images in areas where it used to be smooth. Smoothness requires more unique colors, and when those unique colors are replaced with common colors during compression, it creates blotchy areas.

Lossy compression is able to compress more than lossless compression because lossy will create identical data where none exists.

When you or anyone claims to be able to remove compression artifacts from an image, you are claiming to be able to completely uncompress data which was lossy compressed. That is impossible. The only thing you or they did was manipulate the data to hide the effects of lossy compression, and that data does not represent the original uncompressed data. That manipulated data is artificial.

How about YOU contact Adobe... You will see that they will tell you exactly what I am telling you.
edit on 9-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


You will find out it's like talking to one of the rocks in the pictures were arianna thinks they see cities!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by senselessness
 


You will find out it's like talking to one of the rocks in the pictures were arianna thinks they see cities!


Well wmd_2008, I notice you haven't posted any observations about the group of objects seen in the images above. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to commit yourself to the fact that the tiny objects are very tiny structures. The complex of structures would appear to be an active and working industrial unit.

This can only mean one thing. The detail showing in the image confirms there is intelligent life on Mars or am I still being delusional?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Well wmd_2008, I notice you haven't posted any observations about the group of objects seen in the images above.


You mean the photo of rocks!


or am I still being delusional?


Lock in "B" Eddie!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Is your "industrial complex" supposed to look like this?



Sorry, I'm just seeing rocks, no factories.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by senselessness
 


You will find out it's like talking to one of the rocks in the pictures were arianna thinks they see cities!


Well wmd_2008, I notice you haven't posted any observations about the group of objects seen in the images above. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to commit yourself to the fact that the tiny objects are very tiny structures. The complex of structures would appear to be an active and working industrial unit.

This can only mean one thing. The detail showing in the image confirms there is intelligent life on Mars or am I still being delusional?


I notice you haven't posted any response to senselessness's points, put far better than most I imagine. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to admit you don't know what your talking about.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamdan

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by senselessness
 


You will find out it's like talking to one of the rocks in the pictures were arianna thinks they see cities!


Well wmd_2008, I notice you haven't posted any observations about the group of objects seen in the images above. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to commit yourself to the fact that the tiny objects are very tiny structures. The complex of structures would appear to be an active and working industrial unit.

This can only mean one thing. The detail showing in the image confirms there is intelligent life on Mars or am I still being delusional?


I notice you haven't posted any response to senselessness's points, put far better than most I imagine. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to admit you don't know what your talking about.

Personally, I have been obsessed with the tiny martian civilizations that may have been discovered here even if it is not an actuality. I hoping she makes a comback and shows you what for!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamdan

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by senselessness
 


You will find out it's like talking to one of the rocks in the pictures were arianna thinks they see cities!


Well wmd_2008, I notice you haven't posted any observations about the group of objects seen in the images above. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to commit yourself to the fact that the tiny objects are very tiny structures. The complex of structures would appear to be an active and working industrial unit.

This can only mean one thing. The detail showing in the image confirms there is intelligent life on Mars or am I still being delusional?


I notice you haven't posted any response to senselessness's points, put far better than most I imagine. I can understand why you may be somewhat reticent to admit you don't know what your talking about.


The analysis by senselessness is perfectly correct and I agree with everything that has been written. Maybe I should have said that the artefacts in the right-hand image have been 'hidden' or reduced rather than giving the impression that they had been completely removed, which of course they have not. Maybe senselessness being a software engineer can see the artefacts on the right-hand image without any upscaling but most people would not have a clue whether or not there were artefacts in.

The object detail contained in the left-hand image can still be realised in the right-hand image - less the visible artefacts that were distorting the original view. The people who know nothing about image processing, would probably not have been aware that the 'modified' right-hand image originally contained such artefacts. However it has to be said that if the right-hand image was displayed as a single view the issues relating to image artefacts would not have arisen.

The discussion on this topic became an issue when I posted a couple of lossless png images and said that the image artefacts had been removed. Just shows that you have to be careful with what is posted on the forum as some people will take offense and make a mountain out of a molehill.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


So it's better to lie and say the images are originals after they're modified? Please don't create a culture of doing that. We will be no closer to the truth if people are lying about modifying pictures.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by arianna
 


So it's better to lie and say the images are originals after they're modified?


No lies here, just people twisting things! I have always maintained an original image is an original irrespective of the saved format. So, as YOU have said it's better to lie I would be very interested to know where in this thread I have said that a modified or improved image is the original. After changes or adjustments have been made to an original image the new saved version cannot possibly be classed as the original image although the view may remain the same.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
... the new saved version cannot possibly be classed as the original image although the view may remain the same.


That's because the view is not the same. Different formats render the picture differently. Saving something from .png to .jpg creates loss, etc.

You need to understand that you will always run into this problem if you continue to do research the way you're doing it, because there will always be someone out there who knows what's going on with the pictures, and they will call you on it. Use only original images, there's no reason not to. People don't care if there are a couple of ugly artifacts in the picture so long as it's the original untouched picture and there's something worth seeing that doesn't take a whole lot of swallowing.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye

Originally posted by arianna
... the new saved version cannot possibly be classed as the original image although the view may remain the same.


That's because the view is not the same. Different formats render the picture differently. Saving something from .png to .jpg creates loss, etc.

You need to understand that you will always run into this problem if you continue to do research the way you're doing it, because there will always be someone out there who knows what's going on with the pictures, and they will call you on it. Use only original images, there's no reason not to. People don't care if there are a couple of ugly artifacts in the picture so long as it's the original untouched picture and there's something worth seeing that doesn't take a whole lot of swallowing.


Firstly, do you understand what you have written in your first sentence? If you look closely at the right-hand image and compare it with the left-hand image you will see that the object detail has been retained.

You said that different formats render the picture differently. I'm sure the imaging department at JPL are having a good laugh at this. If different image formats render a view differently then why is JPL releasing PIA images in the .tif format and the lossy .jpg format on the same catologue pages without any recognizable change to the rendering of the object detail?

The images I download are the original images. Making changes to an original to 'hide' the compression artefacts on a .jpg image is perfectly acceptable as long as the integrity of the object detail contained in the view is maintained.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The images I download are the original images. Making changes to an original to 'hide' the compression artefacts on a .jpg image is perfectly acceptable as long as the integrity of the object detail contained in the view is maintained.


...which it isn't.

I give up. Honestly, I was trying to help you, because the way you are going about business is completely wrong, and anything you attempt to do in any official (read: scientific) manner with your findings will be laughed at by the professional community.

But to be perfectly honest, that's why you're on an anonymous forum on the internet rather than bringing your findings to the news or scientific community, so I think you already understand that.

Good luck with your work.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye

Originally posted by arianna
The images I download are the original images. Making changes to an original to 'hide' the compression artefacts on a .jpg image is perfectly acceptable as long as the integrity of the object detail contained in the view is maintained.


...which it isn't.


Oh, but the integrity of the object detail is maintained.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to show how the integrity of object detail in an image from Mars or the moon is not maintained when downloaded as a .png or .tiff and then converted to a .jpg. I would be interested to view your posted images, if you have something in mind that would fit the bill.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 

Looks like you need imaging101 lessons.

This shows the jpeg compression artifacts versus an uncompressed image, though I don't know why you think it has to be on a Mars image:

JPEG Artifacts

This stuff is well known and easily found on Google so you could at least pretend you're trying to look this stuff up yourself, but instead you just ask others to spoon feed this stuff to you? Please, at least make some effort to learn.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No Arbitrageur, thank you but I do not need any lessons on the subject of image processing as I've been connected with scientific photography and scientific institutions for over thirty years.

Now would seem an appropriate time to return to the photograph posted in the OP.

Are there any wires to be seen in the OP's image or could it be compression artefacts distorting the view?

Is the large object just a large rock or is it something else?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
No Arbitrageur, thank you but I do not need any lessons on the subject of image processing as I've been connected with scientific photography and scientific institutions for over thirty years.
You're asking questions that indicate you do need lessons, regardless of the experience you have.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by arianna
No Arbitrageur, thank you but I do not need any lessons on the subject of image processing as I've been connected with scientific photography and scientific institutions for over thirty years.
You're asking questions that indicate you do need lessons, regardless of the experience you have.


I do not need any lessons thank you very much as the questions I have asked are related to whether or not there are 'wires' near the large object.. My own view is that there are no 'wires' showing in the image, but what may appear as 'wires' could possibly be something more substantial.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Is there someone you know that could read this thread and explain this to you in a way you can understand?





top topics
 
18
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join