True Color Images from Mars Rovers

reply to post by zorgon

You won't get any argument out of me. Well stated. Unfortunately, the other space agencies seem to go right along with them.

reply to post by Klassified

.... the other space agencies seem to go right along with them.

Well, THAT is quite the allegation, eh?

Does that include the former Communist USSR, at the height of the Cold War?

China, Communist today. Aren't exactly USA-friendly?

India...an "ally" of the USA, but...(well, they are happy to have all of our telemarketing/telephone tech support jobs, so they may be "in on it"...)

Japan?

ESA??

Thousands and thousands of other space scientists who work free-lance, or are independent in some way? None of them stand up to be counted, against the "NASA deceit"?

NASA must have some incredible files of incriminating evidence, then....involving goats in compromising positions, perhaps. Man, seems that would need a huge bureaucracy to manage...wonder how they ever get any launches done?

Originally posted by Klassified
You won't get any argument out of me. Well stated. Unfortunately, the other space agencies seem to go right along with them.

I disagree... I mean after all it was the ESA that showed us the huge water ice lake in a crater...



here is another one from ESA


One of the Mars Express orbiter's spectacular color images of Mars, showing never-before-seen greens and blues.

This image was supplied by the ESA to LIFE magazine


Photo: ESA/Getty Images Jul 16, 2008

ESA's Mars Express Returns Images Of Echus Chasma IN SPACE - JULY 16: In this handout image supplied by the European Space Agency (ESA) on July 16, 2008, The Echus Chasma, one of the largest water source regions on Mars, is pictured from ESA's Mars Express. The data was acquired on September 25, 2005. An impressive cliff, up to 4000 m high, is located in the eastern part of Echus Chasma. Gigantic water falls may once have plunged over these cliffs on to the valley floor. The remarkably smooth valley floor was later flooded by basaltic lava.

www.life.com...

And how about this one? Very odd stuff even a touch of green



Also this

[ats=]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3693689831_ab5ed6b552_z.jpg?zz=1[/ats]

Hebes Chasma, a trough in the Grand Canyon of Mars

Hebes Chasma is a huge trough, almost 8 km deep, in Valles Marineris, the 3000-km long ‘Grand Canyon of Mars’, where water is believed to have flowed.

ESA’s Mars Express has provided new pictorial clues to its history. A flat-topped mountain in the centre of Hebes Chasma reaches 8000 m above the valley floor and rises to almost the same height as the surrounding plain. The mountain is made up of numerous rock layers stacked on top of each other, perhaps made out of remnants of an older plateau, sediments from a lake, wind-blown sediments or volcanic rocks. The rock layers have been exposed by erosion.

Mars Express has revealed evidence of water-bearing minerals such as gypsum in some areas of Hebes Chasma, proof that significant quantities of water once existed there.

For more information:
www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html

Credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)

How about the snow covered dunes at the North Pole?

Ice and dust at martian north pole

This image, taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft, was released as one of a set in 2005 for a conference about water, ice, glaciers and volcanism on Mars.

It shows the martian north polar ice cap with layers of water ice and dust for the first time in perspective view. Here we see cliffs that are almost two kilometres high, and the dark material in the caldera-like structures and dune fields could be volcanic ash.

Mars Express also saw fields of volcanic cones, some up to 600 metres high. They appear to indicate very recent volcanic activity. The question remains, is it ongoing activity?

For more information:
www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html

Credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)

So it would seem that the ESA does NOT share in the NASA RED MARS obfuscation at all

Originally posted by weedwhacker
None of them stand up to be counted, against the "NASA deceit"?

You got it NASA has agreements with all of them and YOU know that because I have shown them many times in many threads. And since NASA provides them money (was even talk of them helping China build a space station) I would say that they will play ball.

But since when does India, China, Japan or Russia have a spacecraft up on or near Mars?

You really should focus a little more on reality and not this while speculation that you present as 'fact'

:shk:

reply to post by zorgon


ESA simply uses slightly different filters to create their "false color" imagery:

Spectral filter wavelength ranges

Panchromatic (nm) 675±90 -Nadir, 2 stereo, 2 photometric

Near-IR (nm) 970±45

Red (nm) 750±20

Green (nm) 530±45

Blue (nm) 440±45

ESA

Note that the wavelength windows are wider than those on the NASA probes. Compare here. Note that the Rover's filters include wavelengths not normally visible to the human eye.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Yes. It takes quite the huge beaurocracy. And they have it. They also have quite a lot of help from the general public who believe whatever the establishment tells them.

reply to post by zorgon

I have seen photos like this before. Refreshing yes. But I often get a sense of "good cop - bad cop" from these agencies. Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by DJW001
Note that the Rover's filters include wavelengths not normally visible to the human eye.

Sure the 'include' other wavelengths, but one does not HAVE to use those addition filters to make visible light images. A point skeptics seem to forget. Even ArMaP has made some that are in his opinion 'pretty close' and he too agrees the skies are blue on Mars



Now your link shows the three filters Red Green and Blue to be..

Red (nm) 750±20
Green (nm) 530±45
Blue (nm) 440±45

Seems to me that puts them right into the visible color range that the human Eye can see..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f671f7dd7fa2.png[/atsimg]

Here is a simple lecture explaining all that. It covers how our retinas see color and how we create color in TV sets and printing based simply on those three colors RED, GREEN and BLUE

So I am not sure why so many are having issues understanding this



pages.cs.brandeis.edu...

Originally posted by zorgon
Here is a simple lecture explaining all that. It covers how our retinas see color and how we create color in TV sets and printing based simply on those three colors RED, GREEN and BLUE

Printing uses mostly CMYK (cian, magenta, yellow and black) because print does not emit any light, so subtractive primary colours are used, with the addition of black to compensate for the unnatural black made with the addition of all inks.

reply to post by ArMaP


That's a good point, and I keep forgetting to mention it.

Mixing pigments (as in paints, or other physical colors) to achieve result that reflect light, and thus display to the Human eye the desired hue, is different than mixing light spectra. I only know this from a peripheral sense, hobby of model building (and paint mixing to "match" colors....when you are trying to build accurate scale models) and learning what I have from not only a lot of reading elsewhere, but from absorbing so many differing explanations from ATS members who work in the various fields, and who have the expertise.

This is why I reject the claims of "NASA coverup" claims....I see it as they using what they had, in the era that the various photos were published, and based on the best interpretations (and personal opinions) of the scientists and JPL (NASA) experts at the time.

(I have used the example of the older color TV sets, with the "Tint" and "Color" and "Intensity" controls....it is dating myself of course, but it makes sense, in at least a lay-person's way, to the 1970s and 1980s of the earliest Mars images being sent from the Landers.....)

I always thought Mars was red because the red-dust that spews out of the large volcanoes all over planet into the atmosphere. The red-dust settles on the surface as the thin, top layer of Martian soil. However, the NASA pictures are definitely not in true color, so the dust must not really be red. That would mean it is just normal colored sand correct?!?

What about the skies? If the Martian skies are indeed blue then wouldn't that mean there are large quantities of Nitrogen and Oxygen in the Martian atmosphere? Or, does it mean that the pictures of the Martian landscape from NASA were taken here on Earth? What is the consensus?

reply to post by tooo many pills


I think (others can check this) but on Earth, since our "air" is mostly nitrogen, we see the blue.

Mars' is a lot of CO2, I think.

Now, I was looking into, earlier, the equivalent air pressure on Mars' surface, which on Earth is at about 35 kilometers altitude. (I looked that up, too. About 115,000 feet)

When you look that up, in terms of altitude on Earth, you find reports of the sky beginning to look black, etc. Because the atmosphere is so tenuous. But, of course, the mix of gases is different. SO we need a more expert person's contribution....also, of course, nearer the surface (as on Mars) possibility of more particulates is feasible, and color will vary. Based on "weather", time of day, etc.

(Your actual mileage may vary, as well.....)

Originally posted by tooo many pills If the Martian skies are indeed blue then wouldn't that mean there are large quantities of Nitrogen and Oxygen in the Martian atmosphere? s?

Rayleigh scattering is not dependent on the TYPE of gas, just the size of the gas molecules compared to the size of the wavelength of light

Originally posted by weedwhacker
since our "air" is mostly nitrogen, we see the blue.

FALSE see above

Originally posted by ArMaP
Printing uses mostly CMYK (cian, magenta, yellow and black) because print does not emit any light, so subtractive primary colours are used, with the addition of black to compensate for the unnatural black made with the addition of all inks.

Hmm you mean like it shows in that document I linked?


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d784aae69f6b.png[/atsimg]

But then who ever reads a linky eh?

But we are not talking about prints we are talking computer images so its back to the RGB images we go...

Perhaps some need to get a CLEAR definition of the term 'TRUE COLOR' that the skeptics are so fond of..

Truecolor

Truecolor is a method of representing and storing graphical image information that allows a very large number of colors, shades, and hues to be displayed in an image, such as in high quality photographic images or complex graphics. Truecolor defines 256 shades of red, green, and blue for each pixel of the digital picture, which ultimately results in 224 or 16,777,216 (approximately 16.7 million) color variations for each pixel.

en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ef7506b5413.png[/atsimg]

Now your eyes or Weed Wackers may see those color charts differently than I do, but we do have a standard norm that the whole world identifies as 'TRUE COLOR". Seems NASA uses a different standard pallet than that of the rest of the world (Like NASA Moon Gray)

And as to 'false color' That too is a very misleading term... because there is NO SUCH THING as 'false color' only images using the wrong true colors

Originally posted by zorgon
Hmm you mean like it shows in that document I linked?

Yes, and the fact that you posted it and say that printing is "based simply on those three colors RED, GREEN and BLUE" made me point that printing uses CMYK.

As you said, who ever reads a link? So I thought it was better to correct your mistake in a post.

But we are not talking about prints we are talking computer images so its back to the RGB images we go...

You were the one who talked about printing, so I guess you should be the one returning to the topic.

Perhaps some need to get a CLEAR definition of the term 'TRUE COLOR' that the skeptics are so fond of..

You keep on saying that the sceptics are fond of the term "true colour", but I only talk about it when I see it misused.

Also, that Wikipedia link is about "Truecolor", not "true colour".

If we were talking about truecolor then, as all JPEGs are truecolor (24 bits colour depth), even a greyscale JPEG image is truecolor.

Now your eyes or Weed Wackers may see those color charts differently than I do, but we do have a standard norm that the whole world identifies as 'TRUE COLOR".

No, Truecolor is not a standard, it's just a name used instead of "16,777,216 colours"

And as to 'false color' That too is a very misleading term... because there is NO SUCH THING as 'false color' only images using the wrong true colors

No, false colour has a different meaning, it means that the colours were replaced by other colours to make things more noticeable, like what you do to show where you see the anomalies.

Look at this Wikipedia page to clear all your doubts about these terms.

edit on 20-11-2010 by zorgon because: ArMaP did it!!

No I didn't.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You keep on saying that the sceptics are fond of the term "true colour", but I only talk about it when I see it misused.

Ah well here in America we say skeptic and true color.. I wasn't aware that Portugal used Queen's English

So what colour do you think the Martian sky looks like if you were standing on Mars on a clear day at noon? And would that be a 'true colour' or a 'false colour'

reply to post by zorgon


POOR form....SIR!

(Off a bit, but I recall, as a newbie, once being taken to task...heck, MANY times being taken to task, for criticizing spelling.,,,and, YOU rightly disabused me of that, straight-away!!!!)

So, shall we get past the superfluous "u" that may pop up in some spellings of words? (Funny, sometimes I use them too, when addressing people who I know live in a part of the world where it is the "norm"...out of respect).

Now, sweeping that discomfort aside.....where are we, EXACTLY, on the topic of "True Color Images from Mars Rovers", again?

(and....well, my spell-check isn't perfect,either....just so you know. Sometimes, of course, just the limitations of WRITING, versus talking and gesticulating with my hands??? HUGE difference, too....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, shall we get past the superfluous "u" that may pop up in some spellings of words? ce, too....

Calm down there now Herr Wacker... since I am Canadian I use either, besides ArMaP brought it up.

Now then I will ask YOU the same question...

IF you were standing on Mars and looking up on a clear day at noon, what color/colour would the Skies of Barsoom be? In your opinion, of course

reply to post by ArMaP


thanks armap!

ir is different from the night vision i am talking about, tho.
anyway to see them?

and i'm not talking about all close-ups.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Mars also have a weaker gravity, so the dust doesn't fall as fast as on Earth.

If, even with a thinner atmosphere, Mars has high altitude winds, they may be strong enough to keep the finer dust up in the air for a long time,

Well if that was true about the lower gravity and the thinner atmosphere... then the same would apply on the Moon even more so because it supposedly has less gravity that Mars and an even thinner atmosphere...

So we should see dust floating around the Lunar atmosphere for long periods of time as well, by that logic, should we not?