Yet Another Martian Anomaly

reply to post by SL55T0T0

Hmmm...don't know about that. It seems that Phage and Moderator Armap found it intriguing enough to post on it quite a number of times.
Good to see you back Zorgon. Good discussions...... some good point, counter points made too.

Originally posted by SL55T0T0
This thread is retarded mods please close it asap

I see it as an opportunity for people to learn something.

If at least one person learned something with it then it was not a waste of time.

Does anyone else see a stone paved Roman road in the fore front of these photos? Nice squarish flatish tiles?

and no - I don't mean the rover's panels.

reply to post by trusername


The only "squarish tiles" are the ones from the solar panels.

And no, Roman roads do not look like that, at least the ones I know.

Edit: you read my mind.
What are you talking about? It would be easier if you would post an image.

reply to post by OrionHunterX



NASA SAYS....

Blue skies on Mars when Viking was there ...

Originally posted by ArMaP
I forgot that I have a program (Algorimancer) that uses the camera's characteristics and the known distance between the left and right cameras to make some calculations.

Algorimancer is free and can be downloaded from here.

Hey thanks a lot for that program

reply to post by zorgon

"True color" is in the eye of the beholder.

Viking color images of the martian surface suffer from a variety of uncertainties, in particular the relative brightness of the "red" and "blue" channels. Early reconstructions of the Viking lander images tended to show "blue" sky, while later reconstructions, trying to account for out-of-band contributions in each filter, tended to show a "red" sky, and often an "orange" surface. Owing to calibration uncertainties, the exact reconstruction of Viking Lander color images remains more or less an art. Recognizing that even white portions of the spacecraft will appear slightly pink (or apricot), since sunlight reaching the surface is filtered through the atmosphere, which has a fairly high concentration of dust, and further recognizing that "orange" is not a particularly prevalent geologic "color," the colors in these reproductions tend more towards reddish-browns.

www.msss.com...

Originally posted by Phage
"True color" is in the eye of the beholder.

Bull Puckey...

True Color is just that TRUE COLOR it is based on exact frequencies of light

Just because some people are 'defective' and cannot see true color is irrelevant


Color chart

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11e9a3a01ebe.jpg[/atsimg]

Primary and secondary colors of Light

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89c5865de123.gif[/atsimg]

Your TV set has only three color guns red green and blue... those are enough to give you full high def color

So maybe the guy adjusting color densities at NASA is colorblind

It was a dark and stormy night, and zorgon claimed:

True Color is just that TRUE COLOR it is based on exact frequencies of light

If that's your point, why would you post colour wheels, and make interpretations from post-processed images??? Posting pretty (but inaccurate) colour wheels, and claiming your perception of colour is 'true' is not really a useful addition here, as the perception of colour is NOT the same as dealing with the 'frequencies'. Why is that when you enter a room that is incandescently lit after you've been in sunshine, it initially looks yelow/amber? And yet five minutes later, your eye has adjusted and balanced the light so white's look white again - which perception was true? Why do cameras have white balance settings? Why did NASA use filters with varying bandpasses? Why do professional digital imagers use calibration processes on their screens, and deal in RGB values, rather than talk about the colours they 'perceive'?

EVERY filter, EVERY image sensor, EVERY film, EVERY eye has its own frequency response curve (or bandpass), its own characteristics, its own dynamic range, its own white balancing process, and unless you use a perfect sensor (and there is no such thing), then there is no 'true' colour. The best you can hope to do is approximate the measurements and look at the numbers. To avoid perception issues and color casts entirely, you would have to NOT view an image, but simply look at the frequency distribution on a graph. Or look at the images in monochrome, and - as NASA and scientists do (could it be because they understand all this?), use whatever filtration/colour balancing process gives them the most useful contrast to show the details that they are interested in.

Posting colour wheels and expecting to see earth-like colours - or make comparisons without understanding all the complexities - is simplistic, and largely pointless..

May I add something:
I dont believe we can look at NASA photos and tell what real MARS look like. The camera can only capture a certain data, the picture's colors are artificially added by the camera's processor. In a consumer DSLR camera, If you dont like the camera's colors, you can always set it to take RAW images (no colors adjustment applied) and you can manually fix the colors afterward on a computer

This photo was taken in RAW and converted to JPG with no color adjustment applied just to show you what the camera really see.
1.


The colors in this one were adjusted to what I believe the scenery look like in real life
2.


My point is the cameras attached to the robots and sattelites have earth's lightning settings in mind. We will never be able to know what Mar's true colors look like until we are able to send a bunch of Canon engineers to that planet.

Originally posted by vinunleaded
...We will never be able to know what Mar's true colors look like until we are able to send a bunch of Canon engineers to that planet.

And even then they would argue amongst themselves, and when they got back, Nikon engineers would laugh at their conclusions and set their cameras up quite differently, while Fuji/Sony/Olympus go off and develop new sensors that use colour filters other than RGB...

Do I hang out at digital imaging forums too much, do you think?

I've got stuff to do (cats to chase, etc) but later, I might drop back and be very specific about those colour wheels. I find it hard to believe they were posted to illustrate 'true colors'. In the meantime I invite interested users to copy them to any image editor and take a look at the RGB ratios for the supposed 'true' primary colours...

Highly ironic..

Originally posted by vinunleaded
May I add something:
I dont believe we can look at NASA photos and tell what real MARS look like. The camera can only capture a certain data, the picture's colors are artificially added by the camera's processor. In a consumer DSLR camera, If you dont like the camera's colors, you can always set it to take RAW images (no colors adjustment applied) and you can manually fix the colors afterward on a computer

This photo was taken in RAW and converted to JPG with no color adjustment applied just to show you what the camera really see.
1.


The colors in this one were adjusted to what I believe the scenery look like in real life
2.


My point is the cameras attached to the robots and sattelites have earth's lightning settings in mind. We will never be able to know what Mar's true colors look like until we are able to send a bunch of Canon engineers to that planet.

edit on 12-9-2010 by vinunleaded because: (no reason given)

A good post Vinu. Looking at those Viking pictures posted by Zorgon, made me wonder for awhile about the colours, although NASA, or rather docus of the time were always at pains to explain that the colours were not explicitly true, but then I noticed the soft lines across the pictures, and that took me in a different direction in relation to the cameras used. Vidicon/Vidicon tubes seem to be the ones in use on Viking, and it seems the lines may be due to noise as in this link,

en.wikipedia.org...

So, there is noise on Mars on the surface, or elsewhere, enough to upset those cameras. Zorgon's Viking pics do look well softened, maybe there is a lot of noise on Mars, and nothing acoustic to record it.

Originally posted by vinunleaded
The camera can only capture a certain data, the picture's colors are artificially added by the camera's processor.

That doesn't happen with the cameras on the Rover's, they are monochromatic.

The colors in this one were adjusted to what I believe the scenery look like in real life
2.

I don't know if you noticed that you turned the sky from blue into white.

My point is the cameras attached to the robots and sattelites have earth's lightning settings in mind.

No, they don't have Earth's lighting "in mind", they are calibrated on Earth but when they take a photo they had the information about the sensor (like temperature), so they can use the known characteristics of the camera and the values sent from Mars to adjust the photo to what is the best possible version of the photo.

We will never be able to know what Mar's true colors look like until we are able to send a bunch of Canon engineers to that planet.

The method used with the Phoenix lander was the best. The camera that photographed the robotic arm that took the dirt samples had several LEDs illuminating the scoop (and the dirt), so they knew exactly the wavelengths of those lights and they could make a perfect reproduction of the photo on Earth.

Unfortunately, that system is only good to photograph small areas close to the camera.

PS: here you can see part of the information from one of the three photos used to make the photo with the blue sky from the first page, this data is from the red channel.

/* INSTRUMENT STATE RESULTS */

GROUP = INSTRUMENT_STATE_PARMS
AZIMUTH_FOV = 15.8412
ELEVATION_FOV = 15.8412
BAD_PIXEL_REPLACEMENT_ID = "N/A"
DETECTOR_FIRST_LINE = 1
DETECTOR_LINES = 1024
DETECTOR_TO_IMAGE_ROTATION = 0.0
DOWNSAMPLE_METHOD = NONE
EXPOSURE_COUNT = 1
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 547.84
EXPOSURE_DURATION_COUNT = 107
FILTER_NAME = PANCAM_L4_602NM
FILTER_NUMBER = 4
FLAT_FIELD_CORRECTION_FLAG = FALSE
FLAT_FIELD_CORRECTION_PARM = (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0)
INSTRUMENT_MODE_ID = "FULL_FRAME"
INSTRUMENT_TEMPERATURE = (-45.3816 , -23.9024 ,
-22.0015 , -29.7318 ,
-29.8528 , 0.0 ,
-44.1312 , -47.6336 ,
0.0 )
INSTRUMENT_TEMPERATURE_NAME = ("FRONT HAZ ELECTRONICS", "REAR HAZ
ELECTRONICS", "LEFT PAN ELECTRONICS",
"LEFT PAN CCD", "RIGHT PAN CCD", "LEFT NAV
CCD", "MI CCD", "MI ELECTRONICS", "DESCENT
CAMERA CCD")
OFFSET_MODE_ID = "4095"
PIXEL_AVERAGING_HEIGHT = 1
PIXEL_AVERAGING_WIDTH = 1
SAMPLE_BIT_METHOD = SOFTWARE_INVERTED
SAMPLE_BIT_MODE_ID = "LUT3"
SHUTTER_EFFECT_CORRECTION_FLAG = TRUE
SUN_FIND_FLAG = FALSE
SUN_FIND_PARM = ("N/A", "N/A", "N/A")
SUN_FIND_PARM_NAME = ("WINDOW SIZE", "BRIGHTNESS THRESHOLD",
"SUMMED BRIGHTNESS")
SUN_LINE = "N/A"
SUN_LINE_SAMPLE = "N/A"
SUN_VIEW_POSITION = ("N/A", "N/A", "N/A")
SUN_VIEW_DIRECTION = ("N/A", "N/A", "N/A")
END_GROUP = INSTRUMENT_STATE_PARMS

Yea the reason the sky in my version is blown out is because i had to bump up the exposure to expose for the objects on the ground. And the brighter the photo the more stuff get blownout. In this case the sky.


I just want to point out people cant really argue what yhe sky in mars look like based on photos put out by nasa because the colors are presented with what the artists think r real colors

Originally posted by vinunleaded
I just want to point out people cant really argue what yhe sky in mars look like based on photos put out by nasa because the colors are presented with what the artists think r real colors

In cases like this that is not really true, the colours are only changed if the person wants to, specially because the colour photos must be created from three different photos.

The colour photos that NASA presents (the orange ones) are made with the radiometrically corrected versions of the photos, the ones that were adjusted to try to show things as the camera saw them.

Also, this is supposed to be science, not art, so there are no artists involved, at least in the science part of things.

The camera does not see real colors.
Sent from android

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Yea the reason the sky in my version is blown out is because i had to bump up the exposure to expose for the objects on the ground. And the brighter the photo the more stuff get blownout. In this case the sky.


I just want to point out people cant really argue what yhe sky in mars look like based on photos put out by nasa because the colors are presented with what the artists think r real colors

I can pick out the blue, for what that is worth. I understand your reason for posting.