Found something moving in sky images from the Curiosity Rover (NOT overloaded pixels). Sol 154

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
I thought I saw other dots but turned out to be grub on my monitor!

^
Me too!
I see it after I zoomed in on the GIF you made. For people having trouble viewing the ufo, zoom to the top left and as the GIF changes images you can see a little white dot moving towards the left of the images.

In my opinion, it looks like a meteor. Could be anything, there's no way to tell with such little detail. Good find!




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I think there are other white dots in a few of the images. I saw one blip by to the right of the lower dark pixel. I think there were others but I can't quite tell with the contrast of the images. So, if there are several transient white dots is this an artifact of the camera or larger pieces of dust? It would be interesting if you can rule those two out.

I watched the longer gif and focused on smaller sections. Does anyone see these other dots?

OP- You said you go through a lot of these images, was it the apparent motion that caught your attention or just that you don't see white dots at all ?

Also, wasn't it pointed out earlier that meteorites would leave a streak not a speck/dot?
edit on 21-1-2013 by Twilightgem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
could it be a meteor shower?
having a completely different atmosphere than earth , any meteor would just pass close without actually having to burn up in an atmosphere with no oxygen.

I am no expert, just puting out something from outside the box.



While it may very well be just a meteor shower, it's moving in a bit of an odd direction and pathway to be a normal 'meteor'. Perhaps it's dust on the camera lens, moving because the rover went over a bump? But that would also imply the picture would have a different positioning with the main objects involved.

Hm. Either way, it is very stumping.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Twilightgem
 


Hi. My friend is the one who found it. I don't usually go through the 1024x512 sized NavCam images because I am an image stitcher - not a dust devil searcher.
(That's why those specific shots are taken).

And meteors would indeed leave streaks, wouldn't they (I would think)?
edit on 1/22/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Transitarian
 


The rover is stationary when those specific NavCam images are taken.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I think some people are getting mixed up with 'stuck pixels' and 'dead pixels'- what they actually represent and how they manifest. I think neither are likely in this event.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunda
 


The stuck pixels, like the dead ones would be consistent in every picture taken by/with the same screen? White transient spots are then not pixel problems, right?
So, dust... Is that dust then close to the lens and can someone familiar with the cameras images be able to tell distances of certain objects?

I know I have lots of questions.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Twilightgem
 



The stuck pixels, like the dead ones would be consistent in every picture taken by/with the same screen? White transient spots are then not pixel problems, right?


Correct.


So, dust... Is that dust then close to the lens and can someone familiar with the cameras images be able to tell distances of certain objects?


If it is dust, then it would likely be very close to the lens to be imaged.

I'm not convinced it is dust. I was thinking they might just be a byproduct of converting higher resolution images to the lossy JPG format.

But, yeah... probably dust.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Hello, i am new to ats and checking things out. My brother is druid 42. thanks.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


So the images we are seeing in the gif are degraded from their original clarity?
The white dots may not be on the original higher quality images?

(Palm to forehead) Duh, of course if it was dust it would be close. I was wondering if anyone would have the ability to tell if the dots were from something at a greater distance from the camera.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Twilightgem
 


Don't hit your head too hard! You might jog something loose


Yes. The JPG images, provided by JPL, that are the source of the OP animated gif, are not original, high res images. They publish this format due to file size restraints and the fact that no one really cares that much about little white dots.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


I was thinking JPG artifacts too... But after I kept looking at the blown-up resized animated GIFs, I realized that I have already noticed the JPG compression. I remember this from when I put together the MARDI video. After the rover landed, it kept "filming" (they were actually 1504 images that were ran in a sequence). The video goes for a good minute and a half AFTER it has landed. The JPG compression what I would describe as "snowy" - if you will.

What I am trying to say is that in the MARDI video, you can clearly see JPG compression after it lands as the rover is stationary - and it doesn't appear to resemble the white dots at all.

Here is the MARDI video. For the sake of this thread and the OP, please pay attention to AFTER it lands and after the dust clears. And please make sure you're at full-screen.



What you will see is JPG compression, and it doesn't look to me to be the same as what is in the OP.

And like I said, we can already see the JPG compression in those NavCam images - especially the 20-frame version from Sol 160 that is at the bottom of the page (a few pages back).

Unless I'm wrong, we can rule out JPG compression, which would really be a good explanation, actually.

I just don't think that's the case in this one.


So if it's not JPG compression or overloaded pixels, we're back to meteors and/or dust...




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 



we're back to meteors and/or dust...


Well, they aren't meteors...

1. They are just little one or two pixel-sized specks.
2. Rightfully so, JPL would be bragging about capturing meteors from curiosity, but they are not.

When in doubt, look to Kansas for the answer.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
This is awesome. It's like the goal of this isn't sharing, just who survives the skeptics. GJ



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Dust? Then?
Not so interesting.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twilightgem
Dust? Then?


Still inconclusive...





top topics
 
43
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join