Martian colony?

Although not exactly the same area, there's an area from that photo that is also visible on a different photo, and there are no signs of those "dots".

The photo with the "dots", photo PSP_002279_1735.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1727d1f2389f.png[/atsimg]

The other photo from the same area, without the "dots", photo PSP_002002_1735.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b4a051963ae.png[/atsimg]

I will try to get the original images, before being converted from JPEG2000 format.

reply to post by ArMaP


And the mystery deepens with the image without the "dots" and the question now is, which one of these set of photos is edited or airbrushed and which one isnt? and /Or my using "airbrushed" too much to strain the credibility of those who control the releasing of these images?

reminds me of a comics section trivia- Spot the Difference?-
just asking out loud.

Those large HiRISE photos are made from 8 pairs of image strips, each pair from one sensor.

The part of the photo where we can see those "dots" is strip 1 from the RED9 CCD, and that's where all the "dots" appear.

You can see below a GIF image (with no loss of detail, GIF compression is lossless) that shows the first 1000 lines of that image strip.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/656e87689f82.gif[/atsimg]

Strip 0 also has some noise problems, but as pronounced as those from strip 1.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c8773e94bdf.gif[/atsimg]

As the image is not map-projected, it's "upside down".

Edit: I forgot to say that the GIFs are made from the IMG files available here.

reply to post by ArMaP


so it would seem that there was a misplaced or corrupted line header of the sensor in the equipment in the original images that produced these dots and that was as per AU hi-resolution experiment phase.
and a good chance that such faults were futher denigrated when used for google apps.(last line mine)

brilliant mr. armap


but are they really?
We can only hope that these AU guys are the best bet we got...
anyway either which way, lets keep "denying ignorance"

reply to post by ArMaP


This post explains the artifacts. I was going to ask how you get images off of the internet before JPEG compression. If you look on your earlier post where you can clearly see the same area, there is a rise near that recognizable 'inlet' depression, that was clearly incomplete when we see the dots, and complete when we didn't. I'm sure you noticed that.

reply to post by Illustronic


I didn't noticed it.

Could you point it to me? Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ArMaP


There's a couple but the one circled is the largest and most noticeable.

reply to post by Illustronic


Now I see it, thanks for that.

Seeing that and the original photo, it looks like they did some averaging of the pixels in that area to try to give the image a more natural look, but, obviously, the detail was already lost, so it doesn't show the ground features as the unaffected image does.

reply to post by ArMaP


It also illustrates the difficulty in combining mosaic images together especially from an orbiting camera where aspect ratios can very as we saw in those two consecutive images, a quite wide aspect ratio discrepancy. Anyone who has to flat scan something larger than a scan surface, even knowing both scans will be flat, it doesn't always happen that a pixel to pixel merge can take place. We can scan at high resolutions to minimize that, but when dealing with images of set pixel counts one may never get a pixel to pixel match to merge.

reply to post by Illustronic


In cases like this one, the various strips, although independent, are created at the same time (the satellite works like a scanner head, moving along the planet while creating the image), so they relatively easy to align.

But with different photos we star seeing the differences created by different altitudes and angles to the surface.

If this is legit, then they would have to be vey recent, due to the sand storms etc.

reply to post by riches321


i'd really like to think this is legit, but as what the others think, that it could be just some "noises"?

though looking at those "noises", who knows if they were purposely acetated to cover up the real anomalies???\

Originally posted by alphaMegas
though looking at those "noises", who knows if they were purposely acetated to cover up the real anomalies???\

Then why isn't there any of those dots on the other photo from the same area?