Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (2015)

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Hello ArMaP, may I thank you for your gigapans which I have enjoyed tremendously.

Thanks.

The bluish tones are what my eyes perceive the image from the blow up, that Funbox made of the object in the far left of the picture, to have. To me it seems to have bluish banding, but as mentioned, I think it might be my computer.

OK, I get it.

There is absolutely no problem with the hole, as I mentioned, I thought it was just a shadow anyway. The comment about interesting was related to the whole gigapan and not just that capture.

I understand it now, thanks.

What is, if any, your opinion on how this structure could have been formed?

That whole area reminds of something I liked to watch when I went to the beach, when a bigger wave came over the sand and reached a dry area, living only a slightly wet layer above the dry sand. That wet layer would dry and remain above the rest of the sand, creating shapes similar to the ones we see in these photos. These photos from Curiosity look like a fossilized version of that.

I'll try to find a photo of what I mean.

OK, I found a page that shows what I mean. I hope that helps.

Laser ranging?
a reply to: TopCat1

originally posted by: funbox
the sky ?

Nice attempt, but no sky in that photo.

Now that you brought that back, here's an example, a panorama I made with the photos from Sol 1033 (thanks to Jonjonj's post, I have neglected my panoramas for some time).

This is panorama, as made from the original photos (click for full size).

This is the same image, white balanced using the information from a photo of the colour target on the "sundial".
(click for full size)

And this is the same image, but white balanced only based on the colours present on the image itself, without any way of getting an idea of how correct those colours are.
(click for full size)

Which one is the closest to what can be seen on Mars? Which one is the closest to how things really look when there's no dust in the air? I don't really know, but I suppose the second one is the one closest to how things look on Mars, while the third is the one closest to what things would look like without the dust in the air.

a reply to: ArMaP

all you need to do is find a few selfies and match the known color of the rover ...as easy as that , if you want to be extra , use its ....o



files.abovetopsecret.com...

this pic
www.extremetech.com...

whilst messing with curves something looms on the horizon

funbox

a reply to: ArMaP

Thank you for that link. It is actually the same kind of thing I thought of too. It does look like some kind of sand/clay "sculpture" perhaps formed by wind erosion.

I have a couple of questions though. First, if it is just sand, I would have thought it would have degraded in the time passed since there was thought to be water on Mars, is that right?
The idea that it is fossilised sand though makes more sense in the case of durability. But can non organic material become fossilised? I am sorry if these are silly questions, but I am not well versed in the subject matter.

Great work on the new gigapans!

Thank you for your help.

a reply to: funbox

Lol I always love your pics.

I also wonder how the rover takes its selfies. I have seen the NASA explanation but I can't wrap my head around it really. It is a composite of many pictures, but there is no shadow of the arm at all. I thought it had like some kind of drone or something!!!

a reply to: Jonjonj

apparently its the Mahli cam , did you see the two towers on the last pic maybe a third ?.. do I have to do a blow up

funbox

a reply to: funbox

I can see what seems to be a coloured greyish column immediately behind the rover, in the distance, is that it? It almost looks like a H.

Edit: No I think I see it now, to the left in the very far distance, what seem to be 2 pin like things?

a reply to: Jonjonj

that's the one , there's another above it , but in this picture I've tried to keep the colours, looks like obfuscation to me , ArMaP may nip on a say image artefacts, to which ill pre-empt to say why so deep and vigorous are they in this segment of the photo ?


funbox

a reply to: Jonjonj

That usually happens when there's something pressing the sand down, or, instead of just drying out, some kind of chemical change either in the water (if it was water) that "glued" the sand together.

One thing we can see on the photos is that all the rocks like that look very fragile, many with holes and other marks of having been broken or more eroded than the other rocks. Even the more "solid" rocks appear more fragile than the Earth equivalent, at least to me.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I also wonder how the rover takes its selfies. I have seen the NASA explanation but I can't wrap my head around it really. It is a composite of many pictures, but there is no shadow of the arm at all. I thought it had like some kind of drone or something!!!

It's the stitching software that does that, as it "sees" that some parts of the photo have what appears to be a moving part (something that appears on some photos but no in others), so it removes those parts. That's what makes it easy to create panoramas of places with people moving, like a monument in some city street with people moving in front of it, the software is able to "understand" what is supposed to be part of the panorama and what is not.

a reply to: funbox

That's probably because the individual photos were not as similar to each other as they should be to create a smooth looking panorama, as you can see by the one I just made (I already had the photos, so it was quicker ).

a reply to: funbox

I shall get my popcorn then!!! As I do not understand enough to weigh in on the colour/image debate I will be eager to learn from any exchanges.

a reply to: ArMaP

One thing we can see on the photos is that all the rocks like that look very fragile, many with holes and other marks of having been broken or more eroded than the other rocks.

There are some strange looking, delicate forms there, I agree completely.

It's the stitching software that does that, as it "sees" that some parts of the photo have what appears to be a moving part (something that appears on some photos but no in others), so it removes those parts.

This is the part that I seem to have either not heard or just plain misunderstood. Now it is obvious of course. Thank you for the clarification.

a reply to: ArMaP

and of course there's always plausible deniability to fall back on, but it's plausible and ill not argue the position without further pictures

funbox

a reply to: Jonjonj

how are you at pythagonal erosion



mast 1047

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
how are you at pythagonal erosion

What's a "pythagonal"?

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: Jonjonj

how are you at pythagonal erosion

funbox

Some sealife jaw perhaps.

a reply to: ArMaP

I think he meant Pythagorean.

a reply to: ArMaP

Pythagoras theorem , its a play on words to describe the erosion

wist het niet ?

triangular shape ..

funbox