Shining Metallic Objects, Horned Rocks, and Bugs (?) on Martian surface from... Curiosity.

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Enhanced,



Rough outline,





posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The one on the left reminds me of this painting.





The one in the middle looks like a primitive throwing something (spear?) at the object.
The one on the right looks like, (going to get a ribbing for this) someone with a overly large head?

Then again, probably just the rock casting shadows and my active imagination having a laugh!
edit on 7-3-2013 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
Rough outline


OK, now I see it ...


Actually, I also wish it 'were' what you interpret it to be. But apart from whether it's drawings, cracks or shadows, your artwork deserves a star, at the very least! Looks magnificent!!


On the other hand, you saw that 'my view' focused more on the lower section of the original image, which again illustrates just how differently people look at these 'rocks'. I guess the only thing that would really help would be some MAHLI close-ups with sufficient resolution ... which NASA/JPL, of course, don't provide for any of the 'interesting' rocks ...

And again: thanks for that nice illustration!!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Maybe some small metal pieces disengaged from spacecrafts during the former or this one mission?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jazztrance
 


You would probably get your wish if people would stop posting pictures of rocks. Come on ? Do you really believe you are going to see some life form on Mars? Scant and scattered remnants of some lost civilization? I do not doubt life out there in the cosmos. Not even intelligent life that is superior to ours in technology but I know that as far as this solar system goes, we are it. No one is living on the dark side of the moon and Mars is not the lost and destroyed prior Earth. I would be blown away if it turned out to be different but somehow I dont think it will. Cast your eye further out and you will undoubtedly find us again or even something better than us. But not locally.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 

Affixed to a large mast atop the Rover is a high-quality camera capable of taking pictures with a resolution value of 1,600 x 1,200 pixels. It can also take video at 10 frames per second in 720p high-definition. With 8 GB of flash memory in the camera, it can store up to 5,500 martian images.

www.topspeed.com...


Just how much faster do you want the camera to be? I dont think they sent this baby up with a Nikon CoolPix with Ashton Kutcher riding shot gun.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by jeep3r
 

Affixed to a large mast atop the Rover is a high-quality camera capable of taking pictures with a resolution value of 1,600 x 1,200 pixels. It can also take video at 10 frames per second in 720p high-definition. With 8 GB of flash memory in the camera, it can store up to 5,500 martian images.

www.topspeed.com...


Just how much faster do you want the camera to be? I dont think they sent this baby up with a Nikon CoolPix with Ashton Kutcher riding shot gun.


NASA send a rover to Mars with a price tag of $2.6 billion, put a 1.92mp camera on it, and film camera that records 10 frames per second at 720p, and you think that is good?

To put it into perspective, my phone takes better pictures and records better film footage!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by ReconX
Rough outline


OK, now I see it ...


Actually, I also wish it 'were' what you interpret it to be. But apart from whether it's drawings, cracks or shadows, your artwork deserves a star, at the very least! Looks magnificent!!


On the other hand, you saw that 'my view' focused more on the lower section of the original image, which again illustrates just how differently people look at these 'rocks'. I guess the only thing that would really help would be some MAHLI close-ups with sufficient resolution ... which NASA/JPL, of course, don't provide for any of the 'interesting' rocks ...

And again: thanks for that nice illustration!!


Totally agree, people interpret rocks differently

Thing with Mars is its landscape is so old and weathered that the rocks look weird, but 99.9% are just natural rocks.

Still, my opinion is that there are anomalies in some pictures of Mars that cannot be natural.
And while the pictures coming back from Mars are very impressive, I can't help but feel Nasa deliberately does not put the very best cameras on Rovers because they know people are intensely going over these pictures and are worried about what people will find.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
To put it into perspective, my phone takes better pictures and records better film footage!

I doubt it, as I have yet to see a phone with a telephoto lens.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Now you have!





posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ReconX
 

Not really, that may be photoshoped.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Hey Arken, in your 2nd shinny object picture, there is a 2nd picture with it in view:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

half way down, extreme right edge.

Also, in your original one I noticed this:



You have TWO shinny objects.


I looked for a 2nd photo on your first picture, but the only one that comes close, the object is just below the bottom of the frame.

I'm impressed with these....(others not so much...but good job on these).


Hi Erik,
I'm on ipad right now and can't edit the picture to show u what I mean. But at the bottom centre towards the right corner I see a similar "plant" as in the Horn rock. Above it it seems there was some photoshop bluring.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ReconX
 

Not really, that may be photoshoped.


No Photoshop



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Thing with Mars is its landscape is so old and weathered that the rocks look weird, but 99.9% are just natural rocks.


Well, that percentage you indicate still leaves room for a whole lot of non-natural stuff on Mars!!


But seriously, I share vour view on this and I think it's a pity to have an army of scientists and geologists looking at things that are obviously natural in origin (inspite of all the exciting implications, eg. an ancient river-bed on Mars etc.), whereas these same people are reluctant to actually analyze something in detail that really looks strange to so many people who, by the way, partly financed the mission ... it's a pity, really!!



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
No Photoshop


Seriously, although that's a telephoto lens for an I-Phone, it's not as good as the ones on Curiosity, at least because of the limitations of being an add-on lens. One of the problems is talked about in the FAQ, the vignetting, caused, as they say, "you're really stretching the focal length of your fixed iPhone lens". As in any thing that works in series, any lens composed of several elements can only be as good as the worst element.

One thing that shows that Curiosity's cameras are good is that people are not able to tell if what is seen in the photo is close to the rover or not, something that is noticeable with bad lens.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The iPhone with telephoto lens was tongue in cheek, but the fact still remains that the camera on an iPhone is better than the camera on a $2.6billion Mars Rover!
edit on 8-3-2013 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Now you have!





Here are some specs for the Curiosity cameras.


Both Mastcam camera heads have a mechanical focus and autofocus capability. The cameras can focus between 2.1 meters (the nearest view to the surface from the cameras’ position on the Remote Sensing Mast) and infinity.

One Mastcam camera head has a 100 mm focal length, f/10 lens. This provides the capability to obtain images with a scale of 7.4 centimeters per pixel at 1 km distance, and about 150 microns per pixel at 2 meters distance. The camera’s square field of view covers 5.1° over 1200 by 1200 pixels on the instrument’s 1600 by 1200 CCD.

The other Mastcam camera head has a 34 mm focal length, f/8 lens. The camera’s 15° square field of view covers 1200 by 1200 pixels on a 1600 by 1200 CCD detector. The camera can obtain 450 microns per pixel images at 2 meters distance and 22 centimeters per pixel at 1 kilometer distance.


The camera in your phone cant resolve at that level, mega pixels of a senor are not the be all and end all.

Info on the Kodak chips used

www.stargazing.net...

Chip size Chip Size 13.38mm (H) x 9.52mm (V)

iphone 5 chip size Resolution = 8 Mp Chip size = 6.15 mm x 5.81 mm

Don't get me wrong camera phones are way better now but for serious work a dedicated camera is still better.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Curiosity has camera technology from 2004!!!
Top end smartphones take better resolution images than the camera on curiosity.
Can't argue about it, it's fact!



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Curiosity has camera technology from 2004!!!
Top end smartphones take better resolution images than the camera on curiosity.
Can't argue about it, it's fact!


From my post above


This provides the capability to obtain images with a scale of 7.4 centimeters per pixel at 1 km distance


You take a picture of an object 1km away with your phone and your attachment and see if you can resolve an object 7.4 cm across!!!!

You don't understand OPTICS bigger sensor SIZE not number of pixels means better light levels your phone has a chip size of Chip size = 6.15 mm x 5.81 mm

My DSLR has a chip size of APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm)

Larger chip size is not just about megapixels that's the mistake you make if you had a few years of photography under your belt YOU might actually understand!!!!
edit on 8-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ReconX
 


Seriously is that the best you can do!!!





top topics
 
37
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join