Strange rocks found on the Moon!

reply to post by arianna


In most cases that's because they adjust the image for the full view, including dark and bright areas.

Limiting the adjustments to the areas we are interested in makes it easier to get a better image.

You can even try to make a HDR image by using several versions adjusted to different brightness levels.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by arianna

 

In most cases that's because they adjust the image for the full view, including dark and bright areas.

Limiting the adjustments to the areas we are interested in makes it easier to get a better image.

You can even try to make a HDR image by using several versions adjusted to different brightness levels.

Yes, that would be another way of producing an image.

A 3-D image for a distant view, such as looking at the surface of the moon from 14 miles above the surface, can be produced from a single image. Imagine being at this distance from the surface, would a camera shift of 3/4 ins to capture another image make any difference? I think not. The two images of the surface would look the same when captured from a distant viewpoint.

I will post a 3-D image of this view as there are many surface anomalies in the enhanced version. Also, I have noticed that the 3-D versions tend to show a clearer view of objects on the surface.

Originally posted by arianna
A 3-D image for a distant view, such as looking at the surface of the moon from 14 miles above the surface, can be produced from a single image.

That cannot be a real 3D image, because if we use two images that look the same we will not get the 3D effect, and with only one image the only thing we can do is change one of the images to create a fake different perspective, but as it is based on the same image, all relative positions of all the objects in the image are the same, not giving a real depth perception.

Imagine being at this distance from the surface, would a camera shift of 3/4 ins to capture another image make any difference? I think not. The two images of the surface would look the same when captured from a distant viewpoint.

That's why they do it in a different way, either taking two photos in different orbits or by using the method used by Mars Express, that uses two different CCD lines pointing in different directions, as you can see here.

Also, I have noticed that the 3-D versions tend to show a clearer view of objects on the surface.

That's our brain, once more, getting some new clues from the depth perception and giving us a slightly different interpretation of the image.

To Arianna and ArMap...

I hope more people are following this thread than we might suspect. I am learning along the way, myself.

ArMap. Did I understand you correctly to be of the opinion that if an image manipulation has removed actual data that you might regard the results of such a process as being deficient?

IF no, I am sorry, please disregard. If yes, I want to say that particularly where brightness and contrast manipulation is concerned, I find that in some cases, the removal of some data does make it easier to see patterns or details others well-obscured by surrounding detail. Now, I know that comes with a caveat: Detail arising as a result of removing original data can quickly be taken too far and can give rise to the suggestion of detail that is not real. IN such cases I tend to be very conservative, personally.


Last night I was taking a quick trip through some of Keith Laney's lunar images to see if I could spot more strangeness. As always, I was not let down. I may open a new thread about that.

But going back to this thread and the original image, I am considering making a sort of grocery list of the features I find most curious and why I find them to be of interest or just what it is that makes me thing a given feature is likely to be unnatural. I think one of the things that never ceases to amaze me is that it is not too difficult to look at these images very closely-keeping in mind the sort of features we would expect to see in a virgin environment- then to see things which really cause one to do the 'puzzled-puppy headcock'. As my inventory of really odd features continues to grow I am even more irrevocably convinced that the moon has been used by someone for something for a long time. It would not surprise me to learn one day that some species regards the moon as "theirs" and not "ours" and that we have been trespassing, encroaching and violating their 'airspace'.It is not lost on most of us by now that even though several countries have had the technology to make their own moon landings for some time, once Apollo stopped everything "public" stopped as far as moonlandings are concerned.

Sorry, I digress. I am going to research this image a bit more. I need the lat and long of the site so I can pop over to the Clementine site to look at some of the other non-visual data which may have been detected by the Clementine probe...or maybe some of the other imaging birds have taken along the way.

This thread is a quality thread, the sort I want to see alot of here at ATS. Thanks, guys.

Originally posted by Malkuth
ArMap. Did I understand you correctly to be of the opinion that if an image manipulation has removed actual data that you might regard the results of such a process as being deficient?

Yes, but it depends on how its done.

We may destroy part of the data in some areas if we are doing it to look to a different area, and the manipulation makes that area easier to analyse.

My problem is with data destroying manipulations done to images and then using only that image to do the analysis, because if we destroyed data then we are looking at an incomplete version of the image, so we shouldn't base any analysis on just that manipulated image.

I sometimes make false (false because they aren't really different images, just different manipulations of the same original image) HDR images to get a better general view of an area with dark and bright areas, but I never base my opinion on just that image.

The process of shadow-enhancing an image has to be carefully controlled and a degree of overall 'balance' has to be maintained. Too much enhancement tends to make the dark shades of grey become darker. This is an unfortunate situation but can be allowed to a certain extent if the enhancement improves data in other areas of the image. The viewing of a 'flat' and 'washed out' original does not tell us much about the surface detail. It is only when the 'embedded' data, which is not visible in the original, is improved and enhanced can a realization of what is really contained in an image be acheived.

Originally posted by arianna
It is only when the 'embedded' data, which is not visible in the original, is improved and enhanced can a realization of what is really contained in an image be acheived.

I think that's the problem; if things appear when some enhancement is done then it means that they were already in the original, even if the manipulation transforms it into something different.

Humans can see more than 256 shades of grey, so a well calibrated monitor can show everything in a 256 (or less) shades of grey image.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
It is only when the 'embedded' data, which is not visible in the original, is improved and enhanced can a realization of what is really contained in an image be acheived.

I think that's the problem; if things appear when some enhancement is done then it means that they were already in the original, even if the manipulation transforms it into something different.

The similar darkroom process is called "burn-in" where more light is allowed to darken certain areas of the printing paper. The process in digital image processing is a very similar process. Some programs, such as Gimp and Photoshop have this tool. For the majority of the enhanced images I have posted on the forum the "burn" tool was applied and set to 'shadow'. The process does not actually destroy the data but makes it darker. That is why I say the process has to be carefully controlled otherwise too much "burn" will darken certain areas by too much. When the "burn" tool is used to manipulate the whole of an image it does not transform the revealed data into something else, it just makes the dark areas darker. The "burn" procedure allows for embedded data to be revealed which normally cannot be seen by the viewer in an original image.

Originally posted by arianna
The similar darkroom process is called "burn-in" where more light is allowed to darken certain areas of the printing paper. The process in digital image processing is a very similar process.

I know that, I have a sister that is a professional photographer.

For the majority of the enhanced images I have posted on the forum the "burn" tool was applied and set to 'shadow'. The process does not actually destroy the data but makes it darker.

It destroys data when the value of the pixels reach the limit. Imagine that you have a small square image with four pixels, two bright and two dark, and the dark have values of 10 and 15. If you use the tool too much, both pixels will be turned into 0, so you have lost the information that they had different values, and nothing can get that back (besides the "undo" feature ).

That's why I say it destroys data.

The same thing happens with the opposite operation.

I have carried out some extra work on the white areas in this image and have produced a pseudo 3D version.

Do not be surprised if you observe anthropomorphic heads and faces which are forming part of the main structures. These shapes would appear to be associated with the inhabitants artistic and cultural identity.



Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...



Here is the pseudo 3-D version of the above image. Take note of the lighter areas.



i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
Do not be surprised if you observe anthropomorphic heads and faces which are forming part of the main structures. These shapes would appear to be associated with the inhabitants artistic and cultural identity.

I am yet awaiting to see why do you consider those things as structures.

Could you please tell us what makes you interpret what you see as structures? What makes you think of what you see as artificial instead of natural? Just posting manipulated images doesn't show us in what do you base you idea.

In this view I have circled many of the surface features.

Within each circle or ellipse there is something of significance to observe.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
In this view I have circled many of the surface features.

Within each circle or ellipse there is something of significance to observe.

That face you circled in the lower left, after I flipped it vertically I thought I had seen a similar face before....oh yeah... this one:


The right image is from this link


And you didn't see this one?

To Arbitrageur,

What you have circled is not a 'face'.

It's a well-defined small group of structures.

reply to post by arianna

Via the pareidolia effect, in the area I circled, I see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth with a cigar sticking out the side of it. The eyes are actually more like eye sockets, sort of like in a skull. You don't see that too?

Where are the structures?

Here's what structures look like from the air:

www.superstock.com...

I don't see anything like that, do you?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by arianna

 

Via the pareidolia effect, in the area I circled, I see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth with a cigar sticking out the side of it. The eyes are actually more like eye sockets, sort of like in a skull. You don't see that too?

Where are the structures?

Here's what structures look like from the air:

www.superstock.com...

I don't see anything like that, do you?

Your image is not a very good comparison with the lunar example. See if you can find a lunar sample image with the clarity of your posted view.

Here is a section showing the structures. You will probably notice that these structures are nothing like the type of structures we are normally used to seeing on Earth.

Originally posted by arianna
Your image is not a very good comparison with the lunar example. See if you can find a lunar sample image with the clarity of your posted view.

Perhaps you're right about that.

I think the clarity on the lunar view is greater than the clarity of this view, so this image is probably a more fair comparison:

majortrend.tv...


Better?

I see structures in this one.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Unfortunately the GE image you have shown is a top-down view and not an oblique view therefore, the image cannot be used for comparison purposes. Sorry.

This image of the lunar view has an improved greyscale gradient.

You will have to look closely to observe the surface features.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Unfortunately the GE image you have shown is a top-down view and not an oblique view therefore, the image cannot be used for comparison purposes. Sorry.

The first image I showed wasn't a top down view, it was an oblique view and you didn't like that one either.

What is the viewing angle on the lunar image?

Are you saying it's not taken looking down at the lunar surface?