True Color Images from Mars Rovers

It seems like the easiest images to find are black and white, or the lowest resolution. I recall screaming about this before and one of the helpful members provided me with a link of what I wanted... a high res picture that could take 100 years for someone with a 56k connection to download... Exactly what I wanted thanks

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
I've seen mars through a telescope. It looks red-ish to me. I know it isn't blue.

Cool pictures, Zorgon.

edit on 18-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

Nobodys denying it looks red from earth, it is red LOL

Its what it looks like from Mars surface UPwards that really counts, that gives its make up away and we can then guess at its atmosphere just from the colours, (THIS IS WHY NASA IS FILTERING) if Mars does have a blue sky like the pictures suggest, then NASA have been telling us all a little porky, a blue sky would indicate it has an atmosphere much like our own with breatherble AIR,

If you look at a picture of the earth of course its blue, it has liquid water & lots of it, but if you look where there is no water places like deserts we find the same colours present just look at Australia, but even in deserts there is still water under there somewhere and life, take a look at Australia from space it looks the same and we know there's people living there and also a blue sky above LOL regardless of its land colour.

Australia From Space






End of the day... NASA LIES!!!! and Mars is in the so called goldilocks zone, there will no doubt be some form of life living on Mars weather it be microbial or other,

Originally posted by Rhadamanthus
I really don't understand why they just can't take normal pictures like everybody else does on earth.

Because normal photos offer little to no scientific value. When you take photos in various wavelengths of infra red and ultra violet, it reveals things you wouldn't normally get to see otherwise.

Some of you might be interested to know that the next rover, Curiosity (formerly called the 'Mars Science Laboratory'), will be using a Bayer filter for its CCD instead of a B&W one. So this should give us more accurate true colour images like what you'd get from your digital camera at home.

reply to post by zorgon


IRT the off-color paint chip.....

I linked to the research threads hoping that folks would actually read them and then come back here to discuss what they found. Let me do that again, just in case persistence wins out over lethargy for once.

Mars photo color research

The very first post contains information relating to this question, and even includes an email received from the scientist who designed the PanCam. You know, the guy who made the camera that took the picture of the paint chip that he and his team decided to put on the rover and send to mars for a very specific reason.....

From the horse's mouth so to speak. (With apologies to the design team!)

Please, read!

Peace
Montana

Originally posted by Montana
Please, read!

Thanks for writing. The answer is that the color chips on the sundial have different colors in the near-infrared range of Pancam filters. For example, the blue chip is dark near 600 nm, where humans see red light, but is especially bright at 750 nm, which is used as "red" for many Pancam images. So it appears pink in RGB composites. We chose the pigments for the chips on purpose this way, so they could provide different patterns of brightnesses regardless of which filters we used. The details of the colors of the pigments are published in a paper I wrote in the December issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), in case you want more details... All of us tired folks on the team are really happy that so many people around the world are following the mission and sending their support and encouragement... Thanks, Jim Bell Cornell U.

Marvelous...

HOWEVER if you adjust the colors in the images to where the blue chip LOOKS like a blue chip to our vision, how then does the rest of the images so adjusted not reflect what our eyes would see?

When we look at the images set to show us pink chip... the flag for example is the wrong color to OUR EYES yet when the chip is adjusted to look blue... lo and behold that flag look definitely more American

So while I will grant you that TRUE COLOR in terms that Kano uses that term and which seems to be the flogging point is not obtainable... we can however get very close to what we would see if we match the chips.

To say that isn't so is not logical

From Kano's question and answer thread...

Question (The only one that really matters)

Originally posted by ArchAngel
What is the closest to a true color image available now?

Answer

Originally posted by Kano
The ones NASA is releasing, basically.

Sorry that doesn't do it for me as NASA Viking images tell a different story

Mars Rover Picture Analysis Discussion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well I did actually start to ask questions in that thread Seems mine was the last post and was ignore

Just for those who want to see the Martian sky I will add a set on a clear day on Mars
These images have been "Radiometrically Calibrated" to approximate what we would see

Blue Skies of Barsoom









No I won't link to the actual directory... the last time I did that they moved it and I have not downloaded them all yet

But there is a marvelous set here
hortonheardawho's photostream
www.flickr.com...

Enjoy....

I am done... made my point and will let the 'experts' battle it out

reply to post by zorgon


Because the cameras are not recording the same wavelengths of red and blue that your eyes see. Therefore they are recording information differently than your eyes. Therefore, without adjusting for this difference you will never see an approximate true-color image....

The cameras are designed to do this because scientists get much more information from the near infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths than they get from the visible spectrum. The rovers were built for use by scientists, not for people to see pretty pictures back here on the interwebs.

It's all there in the threads.

Peace
Montana

I appreciate your thread and the message. I had initially just taken the rover photos at face value as the 'red planet'. I was quite surprised to stumble across this Nasa article today as I was looking for 'something else' and remembered your thread. This picture was taken by a 'backyard' astronomer and posted by Nasa. It was posted back in 2003. This is what this guy could see from Earth - true color?

Doesn't look like a red barren planet to me. Look at blue and the white polar cap. Amazing stuff!

Nasa Science News

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a44acdb8ef98.jpg[/atsimg]

Nice one, why does NASA do this?
On one level you have NASA telling the truth and that the false colour is not something to get alarmed about. On the other you have a conspiracy with a company that hides the truth? We are not the enemy.

If thats something they hide from the public then what else could they be hiding.

Isn't our sky blue because of the refraction of light in our atmosphere? If Mars has a different atmosphere then couldn't the red 'light waves' show up more?

I'm not of a scientific bent and I'm not about to come down on either side of the argument just yet but there is a reason why our sky is blue and I'm not sure that the same can be said for Mars?

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by zorgon

 

Nice. Why though do NASA portray mars as a red planet?

I thought Mars had been called the red planet much longer than NASA has been around because, well, viewed by the naked eye it looks red? Not really a NASA thing, think of the thought of Mars as the god of war in mythology, I believe because it looked red and was judged to match into the passion of violence in the same way Venus is seen from Earth as blue so evoked different moods.

Originally posted by something wicked was judged to match into the passion of violence in the same way Venus is seen from Earth as blue so evoked different moods.

Well NASA paints Venus in a bright "LAVA ORANGE" and tells us its all Fire and Brimstone and as hot as Hell...




apod.nasa.gov...

While Mars is covered in Heart Shaped Craters



MANY MORE HERE

So maybe... just maybe... things are not as they seem

its labeled red planet simply because it is a red...ish planet, you see at one point mars had alot of iron (natural) but with the delpation of the atmosphere, it eventaully rusted away (litterly no reason i can give) and rust is generally red (unless you are color blind)

Thus the planet is red, this thread is wrong, and putting it under the "alien" section is wrong just wrong, someone should put YOU under the alien section, yea im calling you an alien (because we are all aliens to somebody) so haha eat my word play you ninny.

futhermore, the viking images werent excatlly correct (old tech, wasnt always accurate) too many people seeing too many comspiracies everywhere they go (it generally means your crazy) but SOME (not many) conspiracies are true, but they are useally the ones that slip right by you, the ones that are so retarded they barley effect your life in anyway.

OK im done now, only because i am really cold, so peace out

reply to post by jra


I understand what you are saying. I really do. But seriously you can't just take a regular picture of the place for the rest of the world to just be able to look at with no filters etc? I look forward to seeing the new stuff when it arrives. I just find it hard to believe they they sent this thing to mars and could not take a normal everyday photo tht the rest of the world could just look at and see what the planet really looks like to the naked eye.

Originally posted by zorgon
HOWEVER if you adjust the colors in the images to where the blue chip LOOKS like a blue chip to our vision, how then does the rest of the images so adjusted not reflect what our eyes would see?

If I am understanding correctly what you're saying, that's because those photos never had the right information to create an approximate true colour image.

When you use an image from the infrared or ultraviolet filter instead of red or blue you will never get an image that looks "normal", you will always get strange colours, and if you colour-correct the image you will turn one of those colours in something like the original colours but the other colours will also change, and to something that looks unnatural.

The basic fact that after decades they still refuse to give us a basic normal Earth camera photo, and insist on using this uber complicated line of Bull Crap, is to hide reality from us obviously.

This whole "there is no scientific value in normal camera pics" is one of the most absurd explanations I have heard in awhile.

Also does anyone see on the Earth telescope pic above a few posts, showing the entire planet of Mars, it shows a BLUE Atmosphere all around the edges.

Jackpot!

Mars has a blue atmosphere. That screams Oxygen to me!

Why would NASA hide this from us? Why would they hate humanity so much, that they have to lie and cover up the truth? Why do they not want humans to know that we can go and live on Mars way easier than they made us believe??

And all of these NASA fan-boys are failing miserably. In their effort to explain the process of taking photos on other planets, they are totally forgetting that 99% of us who pay taxes into NASA would rather see a so called "true color" photo than these fake color photo hoax jobs.

NASA has clearly been lying about this the whole time. Mars has a blue atmosphere apparently.

The fact they refused to show us the reality for 40+ years is astounding.

The government team that works to cover things up has proven itself to be full of idiot savants. They can send a spacecraft to another world, but they can't photoshop correctly. Pathetic.

You know who the true skeptics are? Who the true debunkers are?

Those of us who are willing to ask questions and uncover the FALSEHOOD of a red sky mars when totally obvious common sense throws a COLOR GAUGE in our faces.

Anyone who thinks straight will know right away the colors are fake and not realistic.

What is the "scientific" value of showing the public photos of Mars? None.
So why show us photos in the first place since we are obviously too dumb to be allowed to see the REAL COLORS....

Otherwise NASA needs to take a normal camera to Mars sometime. And use that to make photos for the public. That way they don't cause pointless debates like this.

But all of this is conjecture. We have a smoking gun that proves NASA cannot be trusted ever again. They are photoshopping hoaxers, and are trying to use some complicated line of bs to convince us it's totally normal for this stuff to go on.

That is all lies. I know in my heart as a fact, that with billions of $ they would send at least one normal camera to Mars in over 40+ years. Come on now, this is getting way too far fetched to believe anything NASA says anymore.

I guess that means the so called skeptics are actually the believers following what they are told to think, and the so called believers are actually the question asking skeptics who refuse to believe stuff just because some scientists says it's so. Funny irony that is.

Look maybe Mars does have a red atmosphere, but the evidence clearly shows it has a blue atmosphere, and that it has been clearly covered up and hidden in plain sight.

reply to post by ArMaP


You are not understanding it seems.

You keep going on about IR cameras and such, but you fail to realize that Earth humans, 99% of us whom pay taxes into this boondoggle, wish to know the truth.

And if playing with the colors cannot give you a decent 'true color' photo from these over priced uber cameras, than why not take a 30$ normal camera as well? Since we the public paid for it, and since we deserve and seek the truth about Mars, we should be allowed to see basic normal photographs.

Also, lets say I posted a photo of my backyard on ATS, and the sky was red. Because I messed with the coloring and stuff right?

They would call me a hoaxer and ban me, especially after I would claim that the sky is red.

NASA has posted edited photography, and edited the color scheme. They claimed Mars had a red sky.

This makes them hoaxers.

Now why would you want to defend a cult of charletans is beyond me. But suit yourself...

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You are not understanding it seems.

That's possible, it happens all the time.

You keep going on about IR cameras and such, but you fail to realize that Earth humans, 99% of us whom pay taxes into this boondoggle, wish to know the truth.

No, I never spoke of IR cameras, now you are the one not understanding.

Each of the two panoramic cameras has eight filters that show different wavelengths/colours. The left camera has one clear filter (it shows a real greyscale version of what we would see on Mars), an infrared filter, a red filter, an orange filter, a green filter, a blue filter, a violet filter and an ultraviolet filter. The right camera has an ultraviolet filter and seven infrared filters.

And no, I don't fail to realize that many humans want the truth, I am one of those (although my taxes don't go to NASA, as far as I know).

And if playing with the colors cannot give you a decent 'true color' photo from these over priced uber cameras, than why not take a 30$ normal camera as well? Since we the public paid for it, and since we deserve and seek the truth about Mars, we should be allowed to see basic normal photographs.

You don't need to play with the colours, you just need to understand what the photos show and understand that using the wrong colours for the red, green and blue channels of an RGB image will not show you a natural looking image.

Also, lets say I posted a photo of my backyard on ATS, and the sky was red. Because I messed with the coloring and stuff right?

Do you mean one like this?


Sidney has blue skies, but when there's enough sand in the air it looks orange, like Mars.

Now why would you want to defend a cult of charletans is beyond me. But suit yourself...

I am not defending anyone, I am trying to show is that the problem is that people do not understand what they are looking at and accuse NASA of faking the photos. They may fake them, but those colours do not prove it, and the fact that the scientists prefer to send cameras that will show the most data possible instead of just showing nice photos looks logical to me.

reply to post by ArMaP


Well said, thanks for the info, for me that kind of raps up the debate there is no hoax just a very sandy planet!

reply to post by zorgon


Nice post. I had no idea what the true color was on Mars, thanks for providing this information.