Mars Curiosity Raw Image Anomaly

In my part of the world it was afternoon so i was fortunate enough to watch the entire Curiosity landing and get the very 1st raw images before they we updated with slightly bigger ones. It should be noted that the only difference between the 1st raw ones and the next batch is photo size, the details of the image remain the same minus some slight alterations to the background of a particular image.

Here are the raw images i posted the other day, the actual image, the object on the horizon outlined, the zoomed raw image with no alterations.


ext link to image

As you can observe there is an object on the horizon with right angles, and two distinct vertical lines. At this stage in my findings i was about 75% sure this was some kind of structure.

Now as some quickly pointed out these haz cam photos still had the dust covers protecting the lens or the lens had dust on them. This makes logical sense i guess, then i started thinking does dust really form right angles & straight lines what are the odds?.


ext link to image

Here is the same zoomed image again, this time the bottom image has had some contrast and brightness adjustments revealing the dust is actually in front of the object/structure. What does this mean?

1. I would now say that the dust can be seen in front of the object/structure on the horizon, proving it is a seperate entity i feel it is a high probability of being a real object/structure. i'd say about 85% chance.

2. This is somehow a reflection of some kind, but it would have to be curiosity reflecting itself which would indeed lead to alot of interesting speculation.

I'm sure more answers will come in the future but for now this is what we have.

the problem with these pictures for the first week, is that the dust cover is still on the camera right now. so really, it's kind of pointless at the moment trying to glean any kind of "anomalies" from them.wait till sometime next week when the cover is off and the images aren't covered in dust.

reply to post by optimus primal


here's a post by nasa on google+ talking about it linky linky

reply to post by optimus primal


Did you read the full post?... if you adjust the contrast and brightness it reveals the dust and the object/structure are two different entities. Yes i understand it's easy to just say it's all dust.

reply to post by jaysbot

I had a feeling even that first image would be controversial. Wait until we start getting more images back, I'm sure the theories will be flying.

Keep in mind, though, the pixels make everything appear to have right angles. Even dust.

In all honesty it does look like there is some kind of structure there, however it appears to be a large rock. I'm no expert but that's what came to mind. If there was a man made structure there the image would be doctored to omit it.

Is there another image in the sequence that is taken at a closer distance?

Oh dear. Here we go.
And when the dust covers are off, with better, higher resolution, clearer images, all the peeps will be talking about these 'anomalies' getting photoshop'd out of the images as a big NASA coverup.
*sigh*

yes ok... anyone know why the images aren't coming out, i've uploaded to my ATS account and linked.

Originally posted by Druscilla


Oh dear. Here we go.
And when the dust covers are off, with better, higher resolution, clearer images, all the peeps will be talking about these 'anomalies' getting photoshop'd out of the images as a big NASA coverup.
*sigh*

Ok i see your logic, i agree not every anomaly has to be something i also understand not every anomaly has to be nothing.

I can see exactly what you're pointing out, kina looks like a building, imho looks like a factory to me.
However that just might only be me thinking that it looks like that, could be well 'placed' rocks lol.

I believe I heard that the early images were VERY low res. something like 72 pixels or so. This will cause rectangles.(pixelation).

Originally posted by jaysbot
reply to post by optimus primal

 

Did you read the full post?... if you adjust the contrast and brightness it reveals the dust and the object/structure are two different entities. Yes i understand it's easy to just say it's all dust.

your "tweaks" in photoshop, along with the extreme zoom have produced nothing but pixelated garbage. if it wasn't a known fact that the dust cover is still over the camera and covered in dust, i'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but come on dude. come....on....

reply to post by ctdannyd


they are low rez, they're just testing to make sure the camera works properly. correct sir.

reply to post by Druscilla



exactly my thoughts lol

Originally posted by optimus primal

Originally posted by jaysbot
reply to post by optimus primal

 

Did you read the full post?... if you adjust the contrast and brightness it reveals the dust and the object/structure are two different entities. Yes i understand it's easy to just say it's all dust.

your "tweaks" in photoshop, along with the extreme zoom have produced nothing but pixelated garbage. if it wasn't a known fact that the dust cover is still over the camera and covered in dust, i'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but come on dude. come....on....

You can look at the raw image yourself, unedited, untouched and zoom it. the only tweaks are the zoom to highlight the object/structure in question & contrast, brightness alteration on the bottom image to show the dust and object/structure are two separate entities.

can anyone explain to me why in late 2012, we can't get REAL high res brilliant colour photos of the surface? Not something that i took with a pin hole camera in 1992 and developed myself?

Originally posted by sh4d0wz
I can see exactly what you're pointing out, kina looks like a building, imho looks like a factory to me.
However that just might only be me thinking that it looks like that, could be well 'placed' rocks lol.

Yeah i feel it is a high chance of being something...

reply to post by jaysbot


what happens when you use extreme zoom on digital pictures, especially those not of extremely high quality?


i'll give you a hint....




it's begins with a p and ends with xelation.

Originally posted by outsidethesquare
can anyone explain to me why in late 2012, we can't get REAL high res brilliant colour photos of the surface? Not something that i took with a pin hole camera in 1992 and developed myself?

because these are preliminary photos and videos to test the systems. hence why the dust cap isn't even off yet.

Originally posted by outsidethesquare
can anyone explain to me why in late 2012, we can't get REAL high res brilliant colour photos of the surface? Not something that i took with a pin hole camera in 1992 and developed myself?

Because you are being very impatient and have not bothered to read up on what is going on with the rover right now:

It has 17 cameras, right now the main mast and high resolution cameras are not being used and still have dust covers on them.

The Hazard Avoidance cams are low resolution cameras used to help the rover navigate and avoid objects in the way.

Curiosity isn't a fast food place where you can demand your food in less than 5 minutes. It's a fine dining establishment where your food takes longer to prepare....