BBC article suspecting NASA is manipulating the colors

on the sundial thing green was turned to red so grass would no tbe seen

Originally posted by weeman
on the sundial thing green was turned to red so grass would no tbe seen

You can still see red grass. It would just be...red.

Originally posted by BarryKearns
The logo background shows as a dark red because of the filters that NASA is using to construct the "color images".

Instead of using a set of filters that are all close to a human's range of vision (and the colors that a computer can accurately display), they have chosen to use an INFRARED filter instead of a red filter.

This creates color problems because of the way some pigments show up. The background logo paint gives a VERY strong infrared signal... much stronger than the blue signal from that logo in the blue channel.

So when they mix the infrared, the green, and the blue filter images, they get a very strong INFRARED signal that shows up as a very strong RED signal on your computer screen.

so if blue shows up as red, then surely a blue sky would also show up as red in the pictures????

Okay, put a flag in the required vacuum and prove it!
This argument below relies upon authority, not science.



"ENVIRONMENT: fluttering flags"
Link:
www.clavius.org...

Excerpts:

"In a certain photograph you can see the flag waving. That's impossible in a vacuum.

It's always amusing to hear assertions of motion based on the evidence in a still picture.

It would seem that this question needs no rebuttal. But we should clarify that the apparent waving "motion" in the still photos is the wrinkles remaining from its packing. In earth gravity the weight of the fabric itself is often enough let wrinkles "hang" out. But because the flag was made from a very light nylon [Platoff93, note 10] which is even lighter in lunar gravity, the force of the wrinkles wanting to stay wrinkled overcomes the force of gravity for longer.

Here (Fig. 1) is an example of a flag that appears to wave. It's worth belaboring a trivial point to emphasize that observers will tend to "fill in the gaps" in their perception by applying past experience. The still photo doesn't actually show motion -- no still photo can. But the visible ripples cue our recall of all the other flags we've seen where rippling is caused by wind. And if we are not conscious of this extrapolation, we may strongly convince ourselves that we have indeed "seen" the detail provided by our memories.

This is why great care must be taken in interpreting Apollo photos. We cannot allow our prejudices of the behavior of objects in air and strong gravity to influence our interpretation of behavior on the moon.


In the video coverage you can see the flag waving. That's impossible in a vacuum.

The simple answer is inertia. The Apollo flag assembly starts with a telescoping tubular pole shoved vertically into the lunar soil. But the resemblance to terrestrial flag arrangements stops there. On earth we attach flags to the pole at the top and bottom corners. And the same would work on the moon, except that the flag would hang limply without ever being visible for what it was.

The astronauts said it was hard to drive the pole into the lunar surface. [Ibid.] Apollo 11 had no means of hammering it in. In later missions they reinforced the top of the pole so that a geology hammer could be used to drive it. During the process the flag pole was twisted in the fashion of a drill bit to bore it into the denser layers. Twisting the pole would cause the outer tip of the crossbar to describe an arc with a radius of about five feet (1.5 meters). The free corner of the flag, suspended from the tip, could whip back and forth.


In one video you can see the flag move even though no astronaut is touching it. That could only be caused by wind

In these instances the astronaut has just let go of the flagpole. The flagpole and its horizontal rod are bouncing, resonating in response to the residual motion from the astronaut's manipulation. If the wind is causing this motion then why are the flagpole and horizontal rod moving (bouncing), but the flag itself doesn't move at all? And why, in any of these cases, is there no secondary indication of wind such as blowing insulation on the lunar module or dust raised by the wind.

The flag is off-balance when the pole is perfectly vertical. It is balanced when tilted back slightly. Frequently the crossbar will rotate slightly just after being released by the astronaut, much as the door of an off-balance refrigerator will find its own equilibrium point."



IMHO, you going to 'bunk' the Moon landing, better come with much harder evidences then 'debunked' claims.

Originally posted by Kano
The dust? For the same reason the astronauts came back down to the surface, gravity?

0.17 the gravity on Earth. That is just as good as nonexisting. There should have been quite a lot of fuzz.... Or in other words. What uses 1 second to fall from one altitude to the ground on Earth, would use about six seconds to reach the ground on the Moon. Looks to me they are falling down pretty much quicker.....

There wasn't technology to go and retrieve moon rocks at the time. Nor is it possible to pass of meteorites as moon rocks. Meteorites are scarred from their passing through the atmosphere, and they are also typically metallic. The moon rocks are not.

There falls down rocks from Mars. Why shouldn't it be possible for rocks to fall down from the Moon?

The questions about the 'crater' from landing are just plain stupid, as you might realise if you actually read any of the links. They didn't come flying in at top speed and slam the reverse rockets in at the last second to stop, it was slow and controlled all the way. SLOW and controlled.

According to batesmotel.8m.com... what seems from the outside to be nice and slow might not be so nice and slow.

Quote: "When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched."

In order to descend down from orbit in nearly zero gravity (0.17%) you need quite a lot of jet power to slow down the vessel. 3000 lbs of thrust against a sandy surface and no trace from it afterwords? That's not science, that's a miracle my friend....

As far as the dust thing, the moon still has gravity, that is why our white-suited friends didn't go flying off into space..

0.17%. Repeat that 100 times and think about how much lighter they would have been. If you ask me, those suits are either full of helium, or they shoot it all underwater using bluescreen masking.

The stars have been explained ad nauseum on numerous threads.

So I hear you claim, but I have never seen you acyually come up with the proof. Why don't stars show up on Moon pictures while they do show up on satellite pictures perfectly?

Clinging to your pseudo-religious beliefs that these things are all false is well and good. But if you wish to challenge these things in a Science forum, it is advisable to actually learn some of the aspects of the relevant science before doing so. Noone here has the time or patience to explain this to someone who clearly has no scientific understanding whatsoever, that is not the intention of this forum.

If you wish to add more to the moon debate, I suggest you go and learn some of the relevant science then add your post to the numerous moon hoax threads already in existence.

As far as the original article, there is nothing in it we didn't already know. It appears the coloring of the logo is also more reflective at near-IR ranges.

It appears that everything blue in the pictures are "more reflective at near-IR ranges". How they manage to do that by simply putting a tinted film before the camera with the Sun as the only light source is quite strange in the first place, unless their camera is infact an IR camera, registering infra red radiation.....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by mikromarius]

Originally posted by cleggy

Originally posted by BarryKearns

So when they mix the infrared, the green, and the blue filter images, they get a very strong INFRARED signal that shows up as a very strong RED signal on your computer screen.

so if blue shows up as red, then surely a blue sky would also show up as red in the pictures????

That would depend on whether the sky was showing a stronger infrared signal (~750 nm) than a human-red signal (~575 nm for peak red response, see here for the human color receptor details).

If it were, then the sky in the pictures would appear "redder" in an L2-L5-L6 picture than a human would see it.

Originally posted by Bangin
Referring to the ORIGINAL TOPIC:

Good find, mikromarius! Thanks for posting this article. Is that a picture of Africa? I haven't traveled much, myself.

PS-Try to stay on topic, guys. You can start your own thread and thoroughly debunk the arguments against the moon landing. This is about MARS.

About the image of the desert I posted, I have no I dea where it's from. I just searched randomly at Google. You'd find a million of similar pictures from all over the world I guess.....

About the article, I don't remember where I found it, but if you do a search on mars on BBC, it doesn't even show up in the results. Odd. But not strange when you think of what such articles implies.....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Mikromarius, I'm just curious to know what you think the US government has been doing all this time. What has happened to all the billions of dollars poured into the space programs? Who occupied the dozens of spaceshuttles that have been sent up and returned safely to the Earth? What would be the point of a govenment trying to produce these hundreds of fake space mission?

I find it almost impossible to believe that man hasn't ventured beyond this Atmosphere.

As for the Van Allen Belt radiation :

spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill.

-ME

Our government is run by select people in the highest corridors of power. The lie, deny, and kill to keep their secrets. They killed Kennedy, the cover-up the existance of extra-terrestrials. They are terrible people who rule by a totalitarian system. With all that in mind, I still believe the U.S. went to the moon in 1969. All evidence against that has been debunked. The government doesn't care about the people, only themselves but they still most likely went to the moon.

Originally posted by BarryKearns

Originally posted by cleggy

Originally posted by BarryKearns

So when they mix the infrared, the green, and the blue filter images, they get a very strong INFRARED signal that shows up as a very strong RED signal on your computer screen.

so if blue shows up as red, then surely a blue sky would also show up as red in the pictures????

That would depend on whether the sky was showing a stronger infrared signal (~750 nm) than a human-red signal (~575 nm for peak red response, see here for the human color receptor details).

If it were, then the sky in the pictures would appear "redder" in an L2-L5-L6 picture than a human would see it.

But you simply don't see that stuff unless you say one color is another color. Our monitors show three distinct colors in patterns which through the magic of illusion become virtually all the other visual colors. If I took an image with on green filter, one blue filter and one filter which wasn't red, the picture #1: would never be seen correctly on a monitor and #2: would never show the correct colors unless it's film (or ccd and monitor) was designed to receive this new color plate (or channel). Using a standard film would create the same meaningless paradoxes as with the monitor.

To use the musical terms which "dr Kano" knows so well, here's a couple, and it is far more fitting: What you get if you replace the red film with a slightly purple or orange film, is that you would "limit" the whole color specter. You would simply "fase" parts of it away and perhaps enhance a few others if your film was made to correspond with a color which is excluded in the normal RGB model. You would filter away a whole bunch of colors and get everything but a true result. Now why would NASA release pictures to the press, and thereby to the whole world, if it needs such nonexisting equipment in order to be seen correctly. As I said earlier, they could have brought an award-winning compact camera at 3 megapixel upwards for color correction would have been sufficient if they are unable to make equipment which complies to the receptors of the eye.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by MrEisenhower
Mikromarius, I'm just curious to know what you think the US government has been doing all this time. What has happened to all the billions of dollars poured into the space programs? Who occupied the dozens of spaceshuttles that have been sent up and returned safely to the Earth? What would be the point of a govenment trying to produce these hundreds of fake space mission?

I find it almost impossible to believe that man hasn't ventured beyond this Atmosphere.

As for the Van Allen Belt radiation

:

spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill.

-ME

Well, war isn't cheap. Your last rise in the army budgets equals three times Norwegian national budget. Stealth technology isn't quite free that either. And as for hiding it, please! Don't come here and say they would have had problems spending the money and make everyone believe they used it on a bogus mission to space? Have you ever studied a NASA budget? How many of the posts within are really verifiable? Or believable for that matter? Get real. The possibility is there. The money we use isn't even worth the paper it is written uppon. You have no guarantee that your money will still be worth the same tomorrow. There is no connection between money and gold or other constant. The money of today is in itself an illusion, and you say it somehow would be impossible to hide away a budget. NASA is the perfect tool to whitewash the stains with some worldwide hypnotic agenda and hide something else in it's shadows.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

NASA should be disbanded and privatized like air plane manufacturers...NASA should not be trusted...

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by McGotti]

I almost hate to get involved with this, because it is detracting from the real substance of this thread... but I believe in this site's credo to "deny ignorance", and there's plenty here that needs to be denied.

Originally posted by mikromarius
0.17 the gravity on Earth. That is just as good as nonexisting. There should have been quite a lot of fuzz.... Or in other words. What uses 1 second to fall from one altitude to the ground on Earth, would use about six seconds to reach the ground on the Moon.

Looks to me they are falling down pretty much quicker.....

One-sixth of the gravity of Earth is nowhere NEAR "just as good as nonexisting".

What you are neglecting to take into account is that on Earth, the primary thing that slows down falling objects (instead of having them continue to accelerate to higher and higher speeds) is air resistance. The Earth has a relatively dense atmosphere, while the Moon's atmosphere is truly close to non-existent (much more than its gravity is.)

Air resistance leads to the concept of "terminal velocity". For small particulates like dust, or large-scale objects like feathers with a high surface area, terminal velocity is quite slow. That's why dust falls much more slowly than, say, cannonballs do on Earth.

That means that dust kicked up into the air on Earth reaches terminal velocity quickly, and falls at a constant speed. The air is helping to hold it up.

In a near-vacuum like the Moon, there is almost no air resistance, so you don't get the same "terminal velocity" effects... dust accelerates faster and faster towards the surface as it falls. Thowing dust high on the Moon will mean that the dust will fall back down much faster than on Earth, and each particle will land back down at ground level typically going much faster on the Moon than on Earth.

That's not an intuitive expectation that humans have, because we don't tend to do a lot of work in near-vacuum with things like particulates.

Having a higher gravity on Earth does not compensate for having a much more limited "top speed"... imagine comparing two cars:

Car #1 (the sporty blue-and-green model) can accelerate so hard that every second, it could go 22 MPH faster than the second before... but it has a top speed of only about 3 miles per hour, let's say.

Car #2 (the dingy gray one) accelerates such that it only goes about 3.5 MPH faster each second than the last, but there is no practical top speed.

Which car wins a race of any reasonable distance? Car #2, of course, because it only takes a fraction of a second before Car #1 hits top speed and goes no faster. Meanwhile, Car #2 goes roaring by, even though it has an acceleration only one-sixth of Car #1.

Those speeds are reasonable representations of dust trying to fall on the Earth (Car #1) versus trying to fall on the Moon (Car #2). The top speed matters MUCH more than the acceleration in this case.

One of the missions demonstrated the vacuum on the Moon nicely with a "hammer and feather" experiment... drop both objects at the same time, and they both fall at the same rate on the Moon... not an experience that is familiar to humans, where the atmosphere gives a low terminal velocity to the feather.

In order to descend down from orbit in nearly zero gravity (0.17%) you need quite a lot of jet power to slow down the vessel.

This may be the heart of your problem with "nearly non-existent". You are confusing 0.17 with 0.17%. They are NOT the same thing at all. They are different by a factor of 100.

0.17% can, in many cases, be reasonably called "close to zero". But 0.17 is a substantial fraction.

Let's say you go to dinner, and the bill is $36. What is a reasonable tip? $6.00 is a pretty decent tip, and I don't know of any reasonable person who would compare $6.00 to $36.00 and say that the $6.00 may as well be zero.

That $6.00 tip is about 0.17 of $36.00

How much would the tip be on a $36.00 meal if you use 0.17%? It's about six cents instead of six dollars.

Six cents can be reasonably called "nothing" when compared to $36.00. It's only one part in 600.

3000 lbs of thrust against a sandy surface and no trace from it afterwords? That's not science, that's a miracle my friend....

It's not like there is "no trace"... the problem is with the assumption that the dust would have been deep. The lack of atmosphere ensures that the dust doesn't stay suspended in mid-air as it does on Earth... precisely because there is no air (to speak of) for it to be suspended in!

0.17%. Repeat that 100 times and think about how much lighter they would have been.

Don't bother, because that is a grossly inaccurate number... you are erroneously mixing the decimal fraction with the percent sign.

Instead of repeating it 100 times, multiply it by 100. That's what you need to do in order to make the number reasonably accurate.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd use a moon-hoax related thread for the location to post deniable ignorance like this, instead of this thread, which should remain focused on the NASA logo showing in the so-called "color" photos being put out in press releases.

To the only on-topic point you seem to have made:

It appears that everything blue in the pictures are "more reflective at near-IR ranges". How they manage to do that by simply putting a tinted film before the camera with the Sun as the only light source is quite strange in the first place, unless their camera is infact an IR camera, registering infra red radiation.....

You should use Kano's fine thread about NASA not altering Mars photo colors to educate yourself a bit on how CCD cameras and filters work.

The camera registers LIGHT, not colors. The way that the camera can produce "color" images is to put a filter in front of it that filters out all frequencies EXCEPT the one that you are interested in.

In this case, the use of an infrared (~750 nm) filter with a 20 nm bandpass means that the only light that gets to the camera for an L2 shot, is light that is in the infrared range. All of the other frequencies are filtered out.

Sunlight has a HUGE range of light frequencies in it, including infrared. For a blue shot, you use a blue filter, and likewise for green. If you want to show the component of red light that humans can see in your picture, you should take a shot with a filter that is close to the human red response range of ~575 nm. That is an L4 filter for the Rovers.

When you combine a human-red, green, and blue shot, you can produce a picture that's pretty close to what a human sees.

When you substitute an INFRARED filter instead of a red filter, you get pictures that are "off", because humans don't see in infrared. The only way that the picture can be even CLOSE to accurate in the red channel, is if everything in the picture looks equally as bright at ~750 nm as it does at ~575 nm or so.

The color composites produced by NASA show that this isn't true... not only for the lander itself, but for the terrain as well.

When NASA color-balanced pictures of the rocks Sushi and Sashimi for the January 19th press release, using filters L4-L5-L6, we see that a human-vision picture of the terrain is much more sandy-yellow than the dark orange / reddish-brown pictures that NASA has put out with their L2-L5-L6 shots.

It's not really that surprising that different objects will have different levels of brightness when you examine them at different frequencies that are off by a whopping 150 nm.

To see just how "far apart" the L2 infrared filter is from the L4 (red-orange) filter, consider that 150 nm difference is enough to take a nice blue of 480 nm and compare it to a fairly deep red at 630 nm.

That's not off by "just a touch"... the similarities of the names red and infrared mask just how far apart in human-visible-spectrum terms we are talking about.

It's not off by a touch... it's off way-to-Hell-and-gone.

That's why I've been pointing out how wrong-headed I consider it to be for NASA to be constructing almost all of their so-called "color" pictures using L2-L5-L6, when L4-L5-L6 is the obvious and clear choice that should be used.

As far as "human blue" is from "human red"... that's how far apart the frequency gap is between the L2 filter and the L4 filter.

Of course the "color" pictures are wrong when trying to show what humans would see... they aren't building them using red data that is anything close to human-like.

Is that a conspiracy? Hell, I don't know... and frankly, don't care. Their motivations aren't my prime concern here. I just want NASA to "do it right", instead of doing it wrong and then coming up with excuses to justify doing it wrong.



[Edited on 1-27-2004 by BarryKearns]

Woops, Barry beat me to it. (and did it with far more patience than I did by the looks )

One other thing marius, the lander did not land at full thrust. The landers actually use to hover over the surface looking for a suitable landing site, then slowly touch down when they did. Not come screaming in at high speed and slam on the reverse thrust.


(Mod Hat On)
Can we please post any further discussion of the moon landings in one of the many threads already on this topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please also take the time to read the threads before posting to them, to avoid asking questions that have already been answered.

Thankyou
(Mod Hat Off)


[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Kano]

Yikes! BarryKearns, obviously you know how to seperate the fact from the fiction. Great Post!

-M.E.

Originally posted by mikromarius
Now why would NASA release pictures to the press, and thereby to the whole world, if it needs such nonexisting equipment in order to be seen correctly. As I said earlier, they could have brought an award-winning compact camera at 3 megapixel upwards for color correction would have been sufficient if they are unable to make equipment which complies to the receptors of the eye.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

It's actually much sadder than that, IMO. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the equipment... it's PERFECTLY capable of producing the accurate images in the proper human response ranges.

It's a very, very nice piece of equipment. The sad part is not that they need better equipment... it's that they are choosing to use it incorrectly.

You're going to get bad results when you try to use the CD player on your computer to read a floppy disk. Your computer has all of the correct equipment, and shouldn't be blamed for the bad results that ensue in that case.

It's "user error", plain and simple. It's like a chef using baking soda instead of baking powder in a recipe, and then trying to say (after the customer complains) that it should be "close enough", because we want to get that food out to the customer as soon as possible!

The mission of the chef is to crank out lots of food as quickly as possible, right? I guess the chef thinks that the customers should just learn to live with lowered expectations... he's got a quota to meet, after all.

Who cares that the menu said that he was going to be putting out award-winning food, and he's actually producing pig slop... he should get credit for the sheer volume of pig slop he's putting out, and in record time, too!

Shut up and eat, you swine! No soup for you!

so it is still possible that the sky could be blue???

something i did notice was that people have seem to forgotten the subject of the sky actaully being faked, it really doesnt look real in the panorama shots, and has been shown in photoshop to be an added image

am i just really slow and missed the posts of have people just forgotten about it???

Originally posted by BarryKearns
This may be the heart of your problem with "nearly non-existent". You are confusing 0.17 with 0.17%. They are NOT the same thing at all. They are different by a factor of 100.

Thanks for the explanation on the dust. Finally someone who actually answers questions instead of whining about how stupid I am. I want these questions answered, that's all. And I see now that I turned 17% into 0.17% sorry about that. But 1/6th isn't much. They still seem to fall down much quicker than they would have.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd use a moon-hoax related thread for the location to post deniable ignorance like this, instead of this thread, which should remain focused on the NASA logo showing in the so-called "color" photos being put out in press releases.

Well, I started this thread, and if I want to compare the Mars mission with the Moon picture hoax theories I will. There are far too many similarities and they are related to the subject of this thread. It's mostly the same story.

It appears that everything blue in the pictures are "more reflective at near-IR ranges". How they manage to do that by simply putting a tinted film before the camera with the Sun as the only light source is quite strange in the first place, unless their camera is infact an IR camera, registering infra red radiation.....

You should use Kano's fine thread about NASA not altering Mars photo colors to educate yourself a bit on how CCD cameras and filters work.

The camera registers LIGHT, not colors. The way that the camera can produce "color" images is to put a filter in front of it that filters out all frequencies EXCEPT the one that you are interested in.

And I am fully aware of that. My question is simply: How do they manage to get a fluorecent or rather phosphorecent (sp?) effect in the blue hues without using a second lightsource using UV or IR light. You don't get this effect by simply putting a color film before the camera as far as I know. And unless they tweak or "compress" the colors back into the visible spectrum, the effects won't even be visible. You would have to scale up the invisible lightin order to see it. Why on Earth NASA is doing this in their press pictures is quite odd in my opinion. And their arguent that every bloody blue thing on Mars is painted with some kind of superpaint in order to "calibrate" the pictures is just not good enough. Who would calibrate a picture using a phosphorecent color in the first place. It shines with mostly the same "radiance" no matter how you tweak it.

In this case, the use of an infrared (~750 nm) filter with a 20 nm bandpass means that the only light that gets to the camera for an L2 shot, is light that is in the infrared range. All of the other frequencies are filtered out.

As far as I know 750nm is beyond the IR border. But wery well, I see your point

Is that a conspiracy? Hell, I don't know... and frankly, don't care. Their motivations aren't my prime concern here. I just want NASA to "do it right", instead of doing it wrong and then coming up with excuses to justify doing it wrong.

We agree there. It still seems quite absurd that they should present a picture as an RGB composite which is infact not an RGB composit. If I changed let's say the magenta plate with a red plate (used red ink instead of magenta) when producing a print, I would get a completely inaccurate result. Now what would be the point in that?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by cleggy
so it is still possible that the sky could be blue???

The sky is sometimes meant to be blue around the sun at sunsets. As far as permanently blue, no, we can tell at least that that isnt the case. (From the L456 sundial pictures.)

something i did notice was that people have seem to forgotten the subject of the sky actaully being faked, it really doesnt look real in the panorama shots, and has been shown in photoshop to be an added image

No it hasn't, selecting things with the magic wand does not show areas that have been composited in.

Originally posted by mikromarius
And I am fully aware of that. My question is simply: How do they manage to get a fluorecent or rather phosphorecent (sp?) effect in the blue hues without using a second lightsource using UV or IR light. You don't get this effect by simply putting a color film before the camera as far as I know. And unless they tweak or "compress" the colors back into the visible spectrum, the effects won't even be visible. You would have to scale up the invisible lightin order to see it. Why on Earth NASA is doing this in their press pictures is quite odd in my opinion. And their arguent that every bloody blue thing on Mars is painted with some kind of superpaint in order to "calibrate" the pictures is just not good enough. Who would calibrate a picture using a phosphorecent color in the first place. It shines with mostly the same "radiance" no matter how you tweak it.

Covered in the article. Its not phosphorescence or fluorescence at all. The reflectance of the different parts of the sundial are added to the bottom of the article, showing the different patterns of brightness expected by using each filter.