NASA comments on accusations of manipulating Mars images!

reply to post by ArMaP


I get 404s for your images.

Wrong thread!

PS: The bandwidth allowance is probably exhausted so we will have to wait till tomorrow.

Stellar

[edit on 31-7-2008 by StellarX]

[edit on 31-7-2008 by StellarX]

Stupid ImageSack!

It's the second time it lets me add some images and latter they are not there anymore!

I edited the post, please see if the images appear now.

I also added a third image.

reply to post by ArMaP


Hi, ArMaP, thanks for posting these images. I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly - do you mean that your images are closer to the true colors on Mars, or have I misunderstood you?
I also find the little spheres/pearls in the images interesting. (Just to be clear, and before anyone calls me an idiot: I do not think that they are actual pearls! )

[edit on 1-8-2008 by ziggystar60]

[edit on 1-8-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks for posting the images and showing what other amateurs have also found. It is good to know that regular people can arrive at logical conclusions while NASA seems to have some trouble achieving ( or at least admitting) the same.

Stellar

Originally posted by ArMaP

with my version of that photo, created with the photos from filters 4, 5 and 6 (601, 535 and 482 nanometer) available on the Rovers' site, this one

How did you get these? Opportunity's raw images site isn't working right now for the panoramic or other science cameras... Yours look a lot like the press release 753, 535, and 432 nm versions of the images. If yours really did come from the right filters, or was there some imbalance in the exposure settings that they corrected for but failed to mention?

Since I can't seem to get Opportunity's raw images site to work right now, I took the liberty of composing a true color image of mars from Spirit's site. Here's the result:



Looks like what NASA usually presents to me.

reply to post by ngchunter


Well, to me, the color of the sky in the image does look a little different from what NASA usually presents. Or at least has presented until recently. In your image, the sky looks at lot like the sky here at earth, don't you think?

reply to post by ziggystar60


No, looks way too neutral to be earth, unless you're talking about the matrix. In fact, in sampling a slightly curves-adjusted version of the image, the blue level consistently falls short of the green level in the sky. This tells me two things. It's not earth and it's not properly balanced. I think you can use NASA's maestro software to fix the latter:
mars.telascience.org...

[edit on 1-8-2008 by ngchunter]

I am curious about something. If NASA is covering anything up, why would they bother to chop photo's to release to the public? Why not release only the photo's that have nothing in them?

Misfit

reply to post by ziggystar60


I think that "my" image is closer to true colour than the one from the NASA press release, the first on my post.

I don't see how, after using the abrasion tool, the rock would look the same. Also, I think those hematite "blueberries" (the small blueish, round nodules), should look more blue than they look on the press release photo.

I also think, although I have nothing to prove it, that those hematite spheres, along with the dust from which they were formed or that is the result of their erosion, is what makes the blueish areas on Mars that are even visible from Earth and from satellite photos, like this one from HiRISE.

MER Opportunity Rover Landing Site after Dust Storm (PSP_005423_1780)

After studying the subject a little more, this is what I can say about the colour images.

The images created with the photos from the L4, L5 and L6 filters published on the Rovers' site look something like this.



Using the radiometrically-corrected images, it looks like this.



But using the radiometrically-corrected images with the radiometric correction data looks like this.



The radiometric correction data is supposed to compensate the difference between taking a colour photo and separating it in their three components and the three components taken individually, where each image for each filter will have its brightness adjusted for that photo and not for the composite image (I hope you understand my messed-up explanation ).

So, it should mean that the radiometrically-corrected images show what things would look like on Mars at the moment the photos were taken, but that does not mean that this is the colour of those things, as the colour patches on the sun-dial show, it only means that the scene is being illuminated by a reddish light (because of the dust in the air), like here on Earth after a dust storm.

It would be something like this (both examples taken from greekchickie's photostream on Flickr:

During a dust storm.


Normal light.


So, I think that although the reddish images presented by NASA may be correct as showing how things looked at the time the photo was taken, but I also think that they do not show things as they are, that would be shown by the radiometrically-corrected images but without using the correction data.

As an example, this is what happens to the second sun-dial photo when I separate their three components and change their brightness and contrast to make them look like the radiometrically-corrected images.


PS: the changes in brightness and contrast were:
Red component - Brightness +20%, Contrast +10%
Green component - Brightness -20%, Contrast -20%
Blue component - Brightness -40%, Contrast -40%

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by ziggystar60

 

It's not earth and it's not properly balanced.

Thank you for your reply. I think you may have misunderstood me . English is not my first language, so I guess I sometimes have difficulties expressing myself.
I just thought that the color if the bleak Mars sky in your image looks more like the sky here at earth than in many NASA images. I did not mean to imply that the photo was taken here on earth.

(And regarding the bleak Mars sky in your image, I live in Norway, and in the winter the sky here often looks excactly like that.)

reply to post by ArMaP


Thank you for your explanation and the images!

I also think it is good to have an image of the sundial taken here on earth, so we know what the color targets look like:

I will have the advantage of after-the -fact knowledge concerning the Skipper vs. Nasa disclosure debate over Phoenix lander. The white object was probably "Nasa Droppings" part of the shell,parachutes etc/man-made on Earth. That doesn't change the fact that Nasa continues to cover up life on Mars like it's a compartmentalized government secret.Abe Lincoln said "You can't fool all of the people,all of the time."

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Abe Lincoln said "You can't fool all of the people,all of the time."

Yes, and look what happened to him.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Thank you for your explanation and the images!

I also think it is good to have an image of the sundial taken here on earth, so we know what the color targets look like:

BIG problem with this.

Indoor light is entirely different than out door light. You need three major components to have a color to compare to.

1: Same light intensity /brightness / angle / distance in both environments.
2: Same light frequency / temperature in both environments.
3: Same equipment taking the photos and both processed the same way.

Oh and one more,
4: Raw photos of both, no compression.

If you have any one of those, the quality of light-data degrades, the more that are off, the more it degrades...

So... Heres the deal.

In all the images we have online, all of them are one of the following

Indoor
or
Outdoor

If indoor, then you need to recreate the sun's exact position, distance, intensity, wave length, etc. in that environment. AND You would need the same atmospheric conditions and temperatures.

If outdoor, then you must take into account that light arriving on Earth is different from Mars: Atmosphere, Distance, Positioning of the sun, etc... if you could somehow recreate that enviroment of Mars, whilst out-door, then you would have a control medium in which us, on the internet, could without a doubt, prove NASA's images right or wrong.

Then you must realize, files on the internet are not true color. If I scan in a light pattern, compress it, then upload it, there is data loss. Light and Color will not be the same as it is in real life.

Then you must account for every monitor on Earth is at a different brightness, contrast, resolution, refresh rate, color tones, and that as all monitors are aging, the quality drops. [I buy a new monitor every year to insure I see quality of pureness] THEN You must also account for the light conditions of a room, [wearing a red shirt can make your images redder, and lights in the room can do so as well]. THEN You must take into account the conditions of the eyes and nerves of your body...

By the time you do all this, VISUALLY seeing the differences of Mars and Earth are impossible.

NUMERICALLY seeing the differences of Mars and Earth are also nearly impossible without vast sums of capital to buy the resources needed and hire the people and specialists... etc...

In short: Googling an image, even if these 'conditions' are met... will not help you, as compression completely changes the numerical values. There is no way to 'fix it' properly. Thus, it is not scientifically viable method to prove or disprove NASA's tampering.

The only way to do that is to have the RAW data and a control image, through which the aforementioned influences must be taken into account and corrected!

Again: It is impossible without RAW data... all images on NASA's websites are not RAW data. A RAW image from most of their equipment would be in the hundreds of megabytes at minimum... most RAW images from digital single lens reflex cameras are 30-50 MB, in the lower-end professional equipment.



On Topic: I do not think of myself as an idiot... but hey, the scientists told me so! NASA is all sorts of truthfulness... as a professional I think it is improper for anyone in any career to call anyone an idiot outright... he should be ashamed of himself.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by Foxe]

Im sorry, but I agree wholeheartedly with the NASA scientist. It may have come across as rude, but how would you feel if youve devoted your life to studying and viewing the stars and planets to better understand them, to only have people say what youve created is fake. I kinda feel bad for the scientists who worked vigorously on the Apollo mission in which Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon. To this day, millions out there say it never happened. The scientists that made it possible for man to go that far must feel pretty low after comments like that, and I can imagine he's fed up with false accusations.

All is opinion, though. Think what you want.

Originally posted by Foxe
Then you must realize, files on the internet are not true color. If I scan in a light pattern, compress it, then upload it, there is data loss.

Not necessarily, if you use a lossless file format like TIFF (which is hard to view online, only with special plug-ins) or the widely accepted (all browsers can show them) PNG files.

Light and Color will not be the same as it is in real life.

Right, and even the colours I see may not be (and most probably are not) the same colours you see, that is one of the things that change from person to person. Even one person can see in different ways with different eyes, my left eye sees things slighly red when compared with the right eye.

Then you must account for every monitor on Earth is at a different brightness, contrast, resolution, refresh rate, color tones, and that as all monitors are aging, the quality drops. [I buy a new monitor every year to insure I see quality of pureness]

Refresh rate does not affect the colours, and if you want to guarantee image quality you should buy a colorimeter

By the time you do all this, VISUALLY seeing the differences of Mars and Earth are impossible.

Seeing the exact differences is impossible, but a close approximation is enough for most people.

Again: It is impossible without RAW data... all images on NASA's websites are not RAW data. A RAW image from most of their equipment would be in the hundreds of megabytes at minimum... most RAW images from digital single lens reflex cameras are 30-50 MB, in the lower-end professional equipment.

Two reasons why RAW images from digital cameras are so big do not apply to the rovers' (for exampl) photos:
1-They are smaller, the photos from the rovers are just 1024x1024
2-They are only 16 bits per pixel

And the closest thing to RAW images (the images in the format the scientists use) are available in several sites from NASA and other organisations. Any PDS (Planetary Data System) site has photos or other data from space missions available.

reply to post by ArMaP


I know what you have said is to be true, but I was pretty much covering the entire field, not related to this photo specifically. Saying why you can not use your eyes to judge color, AND why you can not use that web image to color correct. I may have not made myself clear enough.

However, they still can not use web images to color correct images from mars. They still need a control-image that is properly re-creating Martian Light levels... not some image googled and was taken indoors on earth!

Regardless of whether we agree or not on some of the other factors, that much is solid fact.