Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (2015)

a reply to: funbox

CONTRAST ADJUSTEMNT is artificial enhancement. Failing to see the difference.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

you are aware that these pictures are RAW arnt you ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

Are you saying you did nothing to change the color contrast to this image?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

but then , is the eye and the mind right >? the absolute in positive identification of a truth?

let alone the machine, I wonder if its of a chickenie taste in nature ?

funbox

a reply to: zazzafrazz

do you mean, did I take away the machine and replace it with the eye ?

I hope your teleportary devices are working , cause it a long journey to mars via conventional fuels

funbox

a reply to: funbox

Thats not answering the question. the image is either had a color contrast done or not.
A yes or no will suffice.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

in a quazi existence ,yes or no are finites that are impossible, otherwise there would not be.

you're attempts to assert that im deceiving are telling to what your motives are. I did not change any geometry whatsoever.the color from nasa *RAW* is wrong in the first place ,

white balancing is entirely acceptable , especially when the picture contains a curious , shiny white thing .. interesting wouldn't you say ? especially on asserted tape

funbox

a reply to: funbox

I'm not seeing where I asserted you were deceiving, it is clear there has been a color enhancement, which I simply said looks like rust, but when you see the raw image it looks like dust.
Simple.

It is apparent that the rust color is artificial as there was a color contrast done.

Thanks.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

don't take my word for it

Photography and the aspect of raw

Raw implication

funbox

PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSSION.

HOWEVER,
DISCUSS THE TOPIC RATHER THAN THE MEMBERS PARTICIPATING.

what I suggest, Zazzafrazz , is you read back through the anomalies threads. all my thoughts and opinions on white balancing, resizing, and a host of other picture correction techniques are their for you to read and ponder.

I feel I would be repeating myself unnecessarily

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
.ArMaP hasn't found another picture,

I did, but as I was having lunch I didn't post it, lunch is more important than a silly discussion about a photo.

This is the photo you posted, with an "A" marking the piece of the rover under discussion.


This is what I think is the same piece, also identified by an "A" to make it easier to see what I'm saying. This photo is from Sol 65.

The brownish tape is visible inside the piece.

This photo is from Sol 1133, the Sol immediately before the one for the photo you posted.

You can see the grey dust on that piece and inside the scoop. You can also see the brownish tape and that there are also some brown/reddish dust on that area.

I hope this makes what I was saying clearer.

originally posted by: funbox
don't take my word for it

Photography and the aspect of raw

Raw implication

Did you read that Wikipedia article? If the images are JPG they are not raw, right?

a reply to: ArMaP

Haw Haw , you know the correct inference

still processing

funbox

a reply to: ArMaP

do you have a link to the first picture you've displayed ? the others don't show the region in question

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
do you have a link to the first picture you've displayed ?

The first of the three images on my post? It's the image you posted, this one.

the others don't show the region in question

What region, the piece marked with the "A" on the first image?

Squished six-legged lizard:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: funbox
if only we had the humidity data. and how did a hole get there? has the rover resorted to self harming ?

I suppose it would be possible to dig back through the available images and find one where there is no hole and no rust?