"Mars Flower" is CORAL; Photos Censored

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JamesChessman

There was no luring added the object is just very small and the camera has difficulty focusing. What people aren't getting is it's about half the size of a penny. Nothing at all like coral.

Yes, the blurring does now look more like it's the extreme blur effect of the camera being used.

...Going by the link to NASA's raw images, above. There's about 3 dozen close shots of the "flower" and yes the camera has some extreme blurring happening.

By the way, that blurring problem is surprising for such a small object... isn't it?

But also, since you seemed to be citing the small size as proof against it being coral, well, why can't it just be small coral? Maybe the scale of coral just happened to be small in that one area?

Or maybe the object is larger than we're told, maybe the measurements and estimations are wrong?

Either way, I don't see a reason for small size / scale. disqualifying it...

a reply to: JamesChessman

What this proves is there was water there not that there was life there. those minerals could not have been trapped in cracks without water. As far as coral if it were NASA would e the first yelling they found life on Mars. Their budget would go from less than 1 percent to 20 percent GDP overnight.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
1. Why exactly are these called "raw images."

Are they literally the same exact images snapped by the rover? Same exact resolution etc.?

I don't know, the camera is capable of sending both real raw format images as jpeg compressed images.

The MAHLI is capable of producing images of three formats: raw (no RGB interpolation, no compression), lossless predictive compression (no RGB interpolation, approximately 1.7:1 compression), and JPEG (with interpolated color). The amount of JPEG compression can be changed from essentially lossless to very lossy. Operationally, most images will be returned as JPEGs because of their lower data volume. The compression factor is commanded from the ground and implemented as the image is acquired.

MAHLI for Scientists

I just downloaded a shot that's 1584 x 1184.

So that's the same exact image, and same exact res, as the rover's camera?

Yes and no. If you read the article I posted earlier it is all there in detail:
Table 1 MAHLI instrument characteristics
And further down:

Full-Frame and Sub-Frame Imaging MAHLI image size—the number of rows and columns of pixels—is nominally commanded in whole number multiples of 16. Full-frame images are 1600 by 1200 pixels in size or larger (the detector is 1640 by 1214 pixels in size; because of multiples of 16, the maximum number of columns is 1648 pixels). Sub-frames, if desired, are obtained at the time of photo acquisition. MAHLI cannot extract a sub-frame from a larger image after it is acquired. One important use of sub-framing is to couple it with an autofocus command to determine focus for a subsequently acquired full-frame (or larger sub-frame) image.

Curiosity’s Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) Investigation

...So is this really just how the MAHLI camera works? Max res of 1632 x 1200... and then lower res for everything else when it zooms closer.


Is this accurate?

No, it can take shots up to a maximum of 1632x1200 pixels. However it is possible to take sub-frames which are smaller, as long as they are a multiple of 16 pixels.
But there is a ton of information out there on how this all works.

2. I'm also just trying to clarify the range of days that feature the Mars flower.

So far it looks like it appears on only 2 different Mars days. Sol 3396 through 3397.

So do you think that's accurate?

Can't think why not, but haven't looked in depth at it.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
By the way, that blurring problem is surprising for such a small object... isn't it?

No it is not. It is not blurring, but a result of the focus used and it isn't surprising to the scientists working with it.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman
By the way, that blurring problem is surprising for such a small object... isn't it?

No it is not. It is not blurring, but a result of the focus used and it isn't surprising to the scientists working with it.

Thanks, well yes that's what I meant by "blurring" now, I meant from the camera focusing. I haven't looked through all the images yet but we can see the focus and blur changing throughout the images.

Also I just want to see the best quality images so hopefully your link to "raw" images will really be raw. The explanations can get kind of confusing about why some are JPG and others might not be or something...

So the title of "raw" images does seem promising but then I wonder why they all seem JPG if they start as some other format... oh well, I'll look more into it later, thanks for the info!!

a reply to: JamesChessman

When you see parts of the image that are "blurred" you are in fact seeing parts of the image that are out of focus.

The camera used to take the photos, MAHLI, can "focus from 18.3 mm at the closest working distance to 21.3 mm at infinity" (source), so when taking photos too close to an object that is rising from the ground it is not capable of having everything in focus.

What they do in cases like this is to take several photos focused at different distances, as you can see in the following animation I just made. You can see on the description which photos I used.



In it you can see how the focus moves from beyond the ground up to the parts closer to the camera.

a reply to: ArMaP

When you see parts of the image that are "blurred" you are in fact seeing parts of the image that are out of focus.

Yes, thanks, I've acknowledged that... after seeing the linked site of NASA's raw images. It does indeed seem to be that the "blur" is just out-of-focus, because the camera is very sensitive with its focus... even though the "Mars flower" is supposed to be smaller than a penny, that camera is just so sensitive, jeez!!

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
I don't know, the camera is capable of sending both real raw format images as jpeg compressed images.

That's one thing I don't like about these new cameras, I still think the old method of uncompressed images (although the files could be compressed before being sent to Earth) was better, as the original images would not suffer from any compression artefacts.

I suppose they think the higher resolution gives them enough of an improvement that can compensate the compression. We should not forget that the connection between Mars and Earth is very slow compared to what we are used to.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
As I'm new to looking at NASA's raw images, I have a couple of questions that are probably redundant but you could probably help clarify:

1. Why exactly are these called "raw images."

Are they literally the same exact images snapped by the rover? Same exact resolution etc.?

Unfortunately, "raw" means whatever the people using that name wants.

With the previous rovers, for example, NASA posted JPEG images as raw images, although they were not, they were converted from the original format used by the rovers to send the data back to Earth into JPEG images without any processing (the conversion was automated), so they considered them raw images.

The real raw images are, usually, in a format that is not readable by common image processing programs (although some can be opened on Photoshop) but that allow metadata about the images (things like camera parameters, for example, on in photos taken from satellites, the altitude and angle of the camera) to be stored on the same file or on a companion file. That also allows higher bit depths (like 12 bits per pixel, something normal image processing programs cannot work with), so having access to those images is important to get the best quality images.
This system also allows other type of information to be used in the file, as those files really "explain" how they should be used to the software reading them.

PS: the fact that an image file doesn't have a familiar extension (or any extension at all) doesn't mean it's not an image file. Some common image processing programs are able to ignore the file extension and read the image type from what is called a "magic number", a sequence of values at the start of the file that show which type of file we are dealing with. If you open a JPG or JPEG image on a hexadecimal editor (a program that shows the values of the bytes in the file as hexadecimal representation) you will see that they all start with "FF D8 FF", and after that they have some other bytes to show which kind of JPEG the file is. A GIF file starts with "47 49 46 38 37 61" for the GIF87a version or with "47 49 46 38 39 61" for the GIF89a version.

a reply to: JamesChessman

I forgot to say that, by taking all those photos they can create a "focus stacked" image that takes all the parts that are in focus and creates a virtual image with everything in focus. We can do that in Photoshop, NASA (and anyone that wants to go to that trouble) can use special software created to do just that with the original images (if they are not JPEG).

Below is the result of stacking the photos used in the animation in Photoshop.

(click for full size)

I stitched some images together to show the 'flower' in its wider context.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

I forgot to say that, by taking all those photos they can create a "focus stacked" image that takes all the parts that are in focus and creates a virtual image with everything in focus. We can do that in Photoshop, NASA (and anyone that wants to go to that trouble) can use special software created to do just that with the original images (if they are not JPEG).

Below is the result of stacking the photos used in the animation in Photoshop.

(click for full size)

^Thanks, and yeah I was generally familiar with the concept of combining images like that, too. (You taught me that it's called "focus stacked.")





What it really comes down to, is that I'd like to make a vid of all the best shots of the Mars flower, it just seems the least that someone should do... and so NASA's linked site offers "raw" images, which all seem to be JPEG... and so I haven't poured over the site yet, but it looks like NASA's "raw" images are JPEG...

So if that's the best we get, then I guess that's it... It's just a confusing set-up since people have often said things against JPEG format...

But I guess NASA's "raw" JPEG images seems the best content available...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I stitched some images together to show the 'flower' in its wider context.

Well no, we wanted you to show the images that you spent 6 months swearing were published by China.

And / or we wanted you to explain your lying and trolling for half a year, about non-existent images.

Don't just jump into a new thread and start embedding JPG images everywhere lol, the world is still waiting for your Chinese images that you've been lying about since last year...

You know, the images from China that nobody can see? Can you show us those images yet?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
As I'm new to looking at NASA's raw images, I have a couple of questions that are probably redundant but you could probably help clarify:

1. Why exactly are these called "raw images."

Are they literally the same exact images snapped by the rover? Same exact resolution etc.?

Unfortunately, "raw" means whatever the people using that name wants.

With the previous rovers, for example, NASA posted JPEG images as raw images, although they were not, they were converted from the original format used by the rovers to send the data back to Earth into JPEG images without any processing (the conversion was automated), so they considered them raw images.

The real raw images are, usually, in a format that is not readable by common image processing programs (although some can be opened on Photoshop) but that allow metadata about the images (things like camera parameters, for example, on in photos taken from satellites, the altitude and angle of the camera) to be stored on the same file or on a companion file. That also allows higher bit depths (like 12 bits per pixel, something normal image processing programs cannot work with), so having access to those images is important to get the best quality images.
This system also allows other type of information to be used in the file, as those files really "explain" how they should be used to the software reading them.

PS: the fact that an image file doesn't have a familiar extension (or any extension at all) doesn't mean it's not an image file. Some common image processing programs are able to ignore the file extension and read the image type from what is called a "magic number", a sequence of values at the start of the file that show which type of file we are dealing with. If you open a JPG or JPEG image on a hexadecimal editor (a program that shows the values of the bytes in the file as hexadecimal representation) you will see that they all start with "FF D8 FF", and after that they have some other bytes to show which kind of JPEG the file is. A GIF file starts with "47 49 46 38 37 61" for the GIF87a version or with "47 49 46 38 39 61" for the GIF89a version.

Thanks for the info, and if you are relating this to the other thread about the non-existent images from China...

Well the main topic was just that I wanted to see the images from the Chinese rover.

So if you understand it, maybe you could shed light on it, in that thread.

However, the Chinese site wasn't really functional, and the site itself seems very phony and fraudulent, so I still don't believe that such images were ever published. Including because Google can't find such images, or see them, neither can Apple software etc.

Plus the 6 months of that thread, people refusing to SHOW even one image, and the very drawn-out conclusion is that such images were simply never published.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I mean how about even just the simple question of why he comes in this thread, embedding NASA's JPG's everywhere, but he won't show a single image from China that he was trolling & lying about since last year lol.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Yes, it's possible that the close-up shot, is made from the same original, as the landscape shot.

However, they still end up as 2 distinct, different images.

It is not completely clear to me what the original image was, since the seem to do composites of those images too:
mars.nasa.gov...

The close-up shot DOES HAVE BLURRING ADDED, which is not there in the wider shot.

I see I might have been wrong; there are quite a few images of that scenery:
Nasa

and you can find enough ones without "blur"
ibb.co...

The blur much more seems like a side effect from the camera itself

By the way, above is the linked NASA "raw" images. Which all seem to be in JPEG format, at first glance.

This is what I'd like clarity about... if someone has more clarity on the topic.

But it looks like that's their absolute best published images, and they're JPEG, and they're called "raw," and that seems the best that there is.

Please tell me if I should do something other than just consider those JPEG's as the best available, and "raw" despite JPEG format, thanks.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Including because Google can't find such images, or see them, neither can Apple software etc.

Google only shows what they want you to see (specially those that pay to be seen), they do not show everything that exists on the Internet.

As for Apple software, I don't know what kind of software Apple has that can find images, so I cannot comment (I don't have any thing from Apple).

a reply to: JamesChessman

You can see the best images here.

It's not the easiest site to navigate and you need some specific software to see the best images (they are not on a common format), but these are really the best images. They also have JPEG versions of the images.

Also, it's only updated from time to time (maybe three months, judging by the dates), so you will not find the most recent photos there now.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Including because Google can't find such images, or see them, neither can Apple software etc.

Google only shows what they want you to see (specially those that pay to be seen), they do not show everything that exists on the Internet.

As for Apple software, I don't know what kind of software Apple has that can find images, so I cannot comment (I don't have any thing from Apple).

Ok we are talking about the other thread here, I am aware that Google is selective in their results, it's not absolutely everything that exists online.

However, on the other hand, Google is considered the BEST search engine, and the fact is, Google could find a total of 3 images of the Mystery Hut. THREE images.

Meanwhile, Monkey etc. were swearing up and down, that there were something like TEN THOUSAND IMAGES published.

So this is not a matter of Google possibly not mentioning something obscure lol.

This is the difference of whether 10,000 images were published, or not.

Google can find 3 images.

There has been no evidence presented that there was ever anything more than 3 images published.

Plus, the Chinese website was very broken and nonfunctional. And it never even said that it offered images LOL!! It offered "data sets" with no images, and no mention of images, and the trolls were swearing that the "data sets" were images that nobody can see. Hmm, images that nobody can see.

Ten thousand images that nobody can see. Hmm.

Monkey etc. can argue for 6 months that such images exist but they refuse to SHOW JUST ONE of those images and prove they exist. Because they don't. Exist.

This is the thread that Monkey completely discredits himself, it's why I was surprised he popped up here immediately in the new thread, now suddenly he has all of NASA's images at his fingertips, but a year of arguing and he has never shown ONE of his magic Chinese images that he promises really really do exist...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See the thing is, there's no such thing as images-that-nobody-can-see.

They are functionally not images, if nobody can see them...

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

You can see the best images here.

It's not the easiest site to navigate and you need some specific software to see the best images (they are not on a common format), but these are really the best images. They also have JPEG versions of the images.

Also, it's only updated from time to time (maybe three months, judging by the dates), so you will not find the most recent photos there now.

Thanks, I'll have to look more at your link, later on.

But you said it's not updated often, so then the earlier link for NASA's "raw images" is apparently still the best available images of the Mars flower for now.



...But so for your link: Do you use that site yourself, and what software do you use with it?

I glanced around and it's not completely obscure. I did find folders full of IMG files to download, so I downloaded one, and then my Mac told me that she can't open the drive (or something like that), so I can tell that it needs some special software.

So lmk what software you use with it?

But aside from needing said software, your linked site DOES have at least the clear structure of folders full of IMG's to download.



Alright, so it's absolutely NOT an equivalent of the Chinese site, which, like I said, never mentioned images of any kind lol, and the site itself was very broken and seemed very fake altogether...

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Including because Google can't find such images, or see them, neither can Apple software etc.

Google only shows what they want you to see (specially those that pay to be seen), they do not show everything that exists on the Internet.

As for Apple software, I don't know what kind of software Apple has that can find images, so I cannot comment (I don't have any thing from Apple).

Ok we are talking about the other thread here, I am aware that Google is selective in their results, it's not absolutely everything that exists online.

However, on the other hand, Google is considered the BEST search engine, and the fact is, Google could find a total of 3 images of the Mystery Hut. THREE images.

Meanwhile, Monkey etc. were swearing up and down, that there were something like TEN THOUSAND IMAGES published.

So this is not a matter of Google possibly not mentioning something obscure lol.

This is the difference of whether 10,000 images were published, or not.

Google can find 3 images.

There has been no evidence presented that there was ever anything more than 3 images published.

Plus, the Chinese website was very broken and nonfunctional. And it never even said that it offered images LOL!! It offered "data sets" with no images, and no mention of images, and the trolls were swearing that the "data sets" were images that nobody can see. Hmm, images that nobody can see.

Ten thousand images that nobody can see. Hmm.

Monkey etc. can argue for 6 months that such images exist but they refuse to SHOW JUST ONE of those images and prove they exist. Because they don't. Exist.

This is the thread that Monkey completely discredits himself, it's why I was surprised he popped up here immediately in the new thread, now suddenly he has all of NASA's images at his fingertips, but a year of arguing and he has never shown ONE of his magic Chinese images that he promises really really do exist...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See the thing is, there's no such thing as images-that-nobody-can-see.

They are functionally not images, if nobody can see them...

you're a troll yourself.

and an ignorant fool.

and a pathetic liar.

in the very thread you've linked, you were pointed to the images. "i can't open those on my computer, so they don't exist" isn't how this works. that's your own ignorance, nothing else.

and ignorance is the name of your game. you have less than 10% of the knowledge required to do any sort of real research regarding photos from space, yet you pretend to be an image processing specialist while pretending to be a youtuber.

and all that while pretending that you're always right, that you absolutely never, ever, can be wrong, while throwing sh.t and laughing at those that patiently point out your mistakes.

just look at your post/star ratio and think what you're doing. it should be obvious to you by now that people here are tired of your BS and are 100x less gullible than you are.