Mysterious "Rocks" appear and disappear... Curiosity Sol 550, 549

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

nataylor

jamesthegreat
The rock in the distance that you are making as a reference point has two smaller rocks behind it. If the camera angle has changed as much as you have indicated, wouldn't the position of the two rocks behind your reference point also have changed? They appear to be in exactly the same position, it is as if they have just been cut and pasted there.
The second photo does look as if it has been taken at a lower angle, which would account for the foreground difference, but the two disappearing rocks look to be large enough to still be seen. But then again, maybe not.


I
Their position does change. This animation flips between the two images, and you can see the perspective change:



So it does. Well spotted.
From the angle of change though, I would have thought it would have been greater than that.




posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jamesthegreat
 


It appears to be quite a distance away. The greater the distance, the less the apparent change in angle.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Arken, another Great Post! I love your Eye for Details. Possibly the 2 rocks that dissapear may be from a slightly different camera angle, but the one thing that gets me is the Little Critter showing up!
Kool Stuff Bud! Keep em comin'! Later, Syx.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   

nataylor
One can always check the drive log here to see how much change in position the rover had between two images: curiositylog.com...

Between this image and this image, Curiosity moved 16.17 meters.


And that's why the rocks disappeared.

I made a cross-eyed stereo image from two of the images in the OP:

This one ("NRB" for "right eye")

and

This one (NLB for "left eye")

Both taken on Sol 550.

That can be done because the images were taken by a stereo camera - one lens for the right eye and another for the left, to simulate human binocular vision. We see in 3D because each eye presents a slightly different view, giving us a depth perception. I will post here a cropped out section of the stereo image that contains the rocks in question:



In order to view it in 3D, one has to slightly cross his eyes, viewing the computer screen from arm's length away, until the two images merge into one central image. It takes a bit of practice, and one out of ten cannot do it at all, but what you get in the end is a 3 dimensional view. We can see in the 3D view that the disappearing rocks are slightly below a rise in the landscape, on the far side of it. If the camera drops just a couple of inches (i.e. sits a couple inches lower on the terrain during the move) the rocks disappear altogether behind the slight rise. What actually happened was Curiosity was climbing the rise during the time interval from Sol 549 to Sol 550, and the two rock hove into view as the camera elevation increased and it could see over the crater rim. They didn't "disappear", they appeared.

In this image, "NLB" is actually on the right, and "NRB" is on the left, because the eyes must cross to get the 3D effect, making the left eye look to the right image (the left eye image) and the right eye look to the left image (the right eye image).

Beyond the rocks appears to be a bowl shaped depression, probably a crater. The rocks that disappear are sitting just inside the rim of it. The big rock, used for reference, is sitting atop a slight pedestal of dirt, which is why it didn't disappear as well.

I used Stereo Photo Maker, a freeware program, to make the stereo image. If anyone wants it in a red-cyan anaglyph version, or simply side by side, I can do that as well if it helps you to see the terrain. Just drop me a U2U and I'll post them in the thread if anyone wants them.

ETA: The picture got shrunk to fit into the thread. If you right click on it and download the image to your desktop, then view it, it will be bigger and clearer.



edit on 2014/2/25 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


If that picture of thre rocks missing isn't doctored, then we have a major issue with something moving those rocks and/or those weren't rocks to begin with. This gives me great pause.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Misinformation

There are literally thousands & thousands of plausible explanations for them not showing up in the photos,,
which makes next to impossible to prove some kind of fakery is going on




No fakery going on at all. it's just an honest mistake of losing the lay of the land in a 2D photo. In 2D, you can't see that there is a rise which hides the rocks at all. The land all looks essentially flat, which would not hide the rocks if it were.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Yup, excellent explanation. Here's a "shaky cam" version, quickly alternating between the two frames, for those people who have trouble seeing the cross-eye version.




posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   

chiefsmom
I get the perspective issue, even in the background of the big rock.
What I have a problem with, is that the second small rock, closest to you when looking at the picture, appears to be in front of the large rock, almost "even" with the split rock, closer than the "outcropping" of the front of the big rock.

So in the next picture, where they seem to have disappeared, you can still see the split in the split rock. Shouldn't you also then be able to see a part of the "front" rock, if they are lined up? It is still closer (more forward) than the "main" rock.


Getting knocked around by the Rover wheels can explain that, as well as perspective.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

nataylor
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Yup, excellent explanation. Here's a "shaky cam" version, quickly alternating between the two frames, for those people who have trouble seeing the cross-eye version.


This is the super dizzy version or a penis gif . I can't tell



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I want to thank all the members that have contributed to evidence the change of perspective of the images taken by the rover and the depth of the 2D/3D.
But nobody has still explained where it is gone the "CUB Anomaly"... That appear and disappear....





posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Was there a martian dust storm that could have moved them, dont the dust storms there gt very powerful, very high winds ect.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


I guess we'll never know about the critter Arken. I do look forward to any of your posts. Keep up the sensational work. Just looking at any of the landscape is an interest for me.

Bally



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Arken
I want to thank all the members that have contributed to evidence the change of perspective of the images taken by the rover and the depth of the 2D/3D.
But nobody has still explained where it is gone the "CUB Anomaly"... That appear and disappear....




It hasn't gone anywhere Arken again you are looking for this object in 2 different images taken at different locations.

So post a link to the image (not a crop) that you think its in and another (not a crop) you think it has vanished.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Already done. And however...
hemm.... hemm.... wmd_2008, dear wmd_2008,... really, but really,.... WTH (%&V&/£) do you want from me?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Arken
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Already done. And however...
hemm.... hemm.... wmd_2008, dear wmd_2008,... really, but really,.... WTH (%&V&/£) do you want from me?


Well since you and others seem to struggle with perspective in these images and can't seem to see when images are taken from a different location, angle and obviously have a different field of view, here are 2 images to enlighten you and the others

Items numbered so you can work things out your cub is number 6 in both images !





Any time perspective causes you a problem just ask for help!



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Good job!



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Arken
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Good job!



Thank You Arken that's appreciated



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Greetings.

First time poster who thinks some of you may be interested in this non rock.



Circled in this image



Original image here

www.nasa.gov...

Atalltale.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
curiosityrover.com has pointing data for each Curiosity image, showing the direction the camera was looking, and its field of view:

curiosityrover.com...
curiosityrover.com...

Hopefully that will help with figuring out the perspective.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

wildespace
curiosityrover.com has pointing data for each Curiosity image, showing the direction the camera was looking, and its field of view:

curiosityrover.com...
curiosityrover.com...

Hopefully that will help with figuring out the perspective.


Also members could take MORE time comparing images and objects in them before making BOLD statements about what they think happens to objects in images ie claims of moving,being in one image and not another when they are, and comparing terrain etc etc.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join