posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:53 AM
Originally posted by qmantoo
I see that some images have been compressed and the patterns on the image look the same. Now... in theory in my mind, I think that if I can get a pure
sky in two similar photos, I should be able to isolate the pattern in both (which looks the same to me) and then subtract it or add it to the images
to get a better picture.
Is this possible or am I totally barking up the wrong tree ?
It would be a lot easier to answer if you gave us an example.
There is a thread on ATS about on overlay of sorts on NASA photos, put there by accident. It was some kind of dirt and debris in the photographic
mechanism. An ATS member did a brilliant job of making a GIF to show how this overlaid different images taken by the NASA camera.
Originally posted by Phage
This is the closest thing I can think of to what you're talking about. But if you have an example of something different you want to analyze
I'd take a look at the photos.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Does NASA keep the public guessing whether the image is raw or not?
What is NASA's convention for identifying images?
That question could be answered with a little research. For example:
Raw Images-See the Latest from Mars!
Raw image identification doesn't get much clearer than calling them "raw images", right?
But the rule of thumb is, if you just see some random NASA image, especially if it's in a news article, don't assume it's raw. Like any photo for
publication, it may be enhanced for best appearance in the publication. It could even be a composite of different raw images. But in every case I've
seen so far, if you want to track down the raw image(s) you can.
In the case of old photos on film though this is extremely difficult, as the film is fragile. It's been scanned but there could be scanning defects
not in the original raw film image, like if there was one bad pixel in the scanner for example, this could create the appearance of some kind of mask
or overlay in multiple images. But a researcher can probably get access to the film if there's a good enough reason. It's a lot simpler with the
latest digital photos, as there's no film or scanning involved.
edit on 18-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification