New mosaic shows Ceres' Occator crater and surrounding terrain from an altitude of 915 miles

PSA

Let's keep it friendly, Folks.

Or at least civil.

Please dispense with the personal sniping.

thanks

a reply to: ngchunter

It's a ridiculous comparison because you're comparing apples and oranges. One is a raw image, the other is a mosaic, do you not understand this?

This mosaic is a composition of RAW images and a tif, which is actually RAW format by definition as well. I've got no clue what you missed here, both can be downloaded as RAW image. Period.

I tore your entire argument apart since it rests entirely upon a STITCHED PROCESSED MOSAIC vs RAW IMAGES!

The picture I compared this mosaic with was also a processed RAW image, we saw a combination of layers there as well. Read the description if you don't believe me, the link is still there.
You're riding a dead horse here, we can clearly see the missing 'features' of the camera in this new mosaic. Fun-fact would be that not all features are gone, only triangle and square, but the round shape is still there.

All you did so far is calling me an idiot for explaining this after I stated my opinion. You didn't offer any explanation how we can miss 2 of 3 certain features in a picture, which was clearly taken by the same camera.

My statement still stands, you didn't tore anything apart yet. Take Ceres now!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ngchunter

It's a ridiculous comparison because you're comparing apples and oranges. One is a raw image, the other is a mosaic, do you not understand this?

This mosaic is a composition of RAW images and a tif, which is actually RAW format by definition as well. I've got no clue what you missed here, both can be downloaded as RAW image. Period.

No, the mosaic is not a raw image. I'm talking about raw images, not uncompressed images. The mosaic, by definition, is not raw, it's multiple exposures stitched together. I guess don't understand this basic fact.

Fun-fact would be that not all features are gone, only triangle and square, but the round shape is still there.

All you did so far is calling me an idiot for explaining this after I stated my opinion. You didn't offer any explanation how we can miss 2 of 3 certain features in a picture, which was clearly taken by the same camera.

My statement still stands, you didn't tore anything apart yet. Take Ceres now!

All of the "features" are there, including the triangle, they're just in different positions relative to the crater because the image orientation was different when the photos were taken and then later stitched together which is why it's important to compare raw unstitched images to raw unstitched images! You're comparing apples and oranges! The "features" are still there in the mosaic but in different positions!!!!!!!!!!!! Right click and view full size:

i.imgur.com...

a reply to: ngchunter

Right click and view full size:

Thanks for your time and all that, but you're obviously pulling my leg now.

You'll need to blow the tif up to 300dpi first, go and read my posts again. Maybe you'll see all 3 features I mentioned, but I doubt you're really interested in that debate.

Have a nice obeyday and mind the gap in your RAW-image ...ehm... re-definitions.

No cave crabs from Mars?

Could be Scarface's lost shipment

?
?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ngchunter

Right click and view full size:

Thanks for your time and all that, but you're obviously pulling my leg now.

No, I'm not. Everything I posted is the truth.

Maybe you'll see all 3 features I mentioned, but I doubt you're really interested in that debate.

I already posted a picture highlighting all 3 features you mentioned. You know this. Why are you lying about it? Stop wasting my time with your denials.

hi all, new guy here.

where the occator crater pictures at 120 feet resolution?

thanks

a reply to: JRedBeard

I would be curious to hear what the thunderbolts guys would say about this.

I can't speak officially for the TB guys as I have some major differences with some of their models, but from my perspective this is alteration of the surface by some electrical/plasma event. The resolution available can never be good enough it seems to reach any solid conclusions, and the spectral data must not allow for positive identification of the material, though I haven't looked into why that may be. Maybe as you suggested, it has become like the glassy amorphous silica found on mountain tops on Earth, or the desert glass.