A photographic challenge for image wizards!

reply to post by Resinveins


That explains it. In fact the boulders could well have been dislodged by moonquakes

Solved?

I can see the lines present even without image manipulation. Must be something else going on.

reply to post by arianna

Not a "shadow enhancement", but this is what I can get from that image.

First, just some level adjustments, without removing any one of the 123 shades of grey that image has.

Now, by removing the less used shades of grey from both the brighter and darker side, resulting in just 74 shades of grey.


Now, some processing that makes the "texture" of the image more visible but creates too many artefacts. I rarely use it.

It may look like this last image has more detail, but it has only 47 shades of grey, less than half the original image.

Image processing is useful, but it should be applied to specific situations, and the type of processing done should be the right one for the desired result, always keeping in mind that there are no miracles in image manipulation.

Here is my version of the view. The full-size version can be viewed from the direct link.

Can anyone improve on this view to ascertain exactly what objects or artefacts are on the surface?



Direct link to full-size version:

i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


I inverted the Image and adjusted the brightness and contrast. There are lines/tracks.


Because the supposed explanation is rocks rolling over the Terrain. The Rolling stones are on this rock too!

Here is a close sectional view from the image. The viewpoint is still some distance above the surface. Look into this image carefully to realize what can be observed.

If you think you're seeing unnatural shapes, this is the reason why I asked if any member can produce a sharper image.

Originally posted by arianna
Here is a close sectional view from the image.

It's not a close view, it's a resampled version.

The viewpoint is still some distance above the surface.

Obviously, how could you change that?

Look into this image carefully to realize what can be observed.

We can observer the same things that we could with the original.

If you think you're seeing unnatural shapes, this is the reason why I asked if any member can produce a sharper image.

But if we see natural shapes, what does that mean? That you are wrong?

You keep talking about "unnatural" and "artificial" shapes, but haven't explained what kind of artificiality do you see in those poor craters and rocks that were so badly mangled by your processing.

ArMaP, I am quite aware of what your intentions are as I have met similar people on other forms who wish to disect and question everything that is written or posted by members. You have to remember that eveyone is entitled to their opinion or point of view even if other members disagree.

I maintain that the enhanced image I posted shows that there is more on the surface than can be realised in the original image. How many shades of grey there are is irrelevant in this particular study. If you can produce a sharper enhanced image than I have produced I would very much like to have a look at it.

The voyage of scientific discovery relies on many factors but also includes enhancing an image to find out if there are surface objects and artefacts to view that cannot be observed in the original. Many things in the past have been discovered by chance. Even a photographic procedure which has been taken further than would normally be accepted by image purists may produce something new or unexpected.

reply to post by arianna


Enhancement with spectrography for geological mineral makeup, infrared, and cosmic ray telescopes like (CRaTER), and neutron detector for radiation emissions, radiometer readings to determine surface temperature variants, Lyman-alpha mapping (LAMP) to search for surface ice and frost, and altimeter echoes to measure altitudes enhance the photographic data, not messing around with digitized pixels.

reply to post by arianna


That indeed may be your opinion but other members who have many years as amateurs and even professional photographs before digital cameras etc took over know you are talking rubbish.

The fact you can't tell the difference between a crater and a mound shown on other thread were you have posted the same picture proves the point ArMaP makes.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

The fact you can't tell the difference between a crater and a mound shown on other thread were you have posted the same picture proves the point ArMaP makes.

In this instance I do not need to be able to tell the difference between a mound and a boulder because I know that they are neither. The image shown here is from the same location but shows a much wider view. I am not concerned about boulders or trails etc but improving the sharpness quality of the image. If this can be improved I am sure that what is really on the surface at this particular location will be able to be positively realised.

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, I am quite aware of what your intentions are as I have met similar people on other forms who wish to disect and question everything that is written or posted by members.

That's just because I do the same to the things I think and write. And why this post took me almost 20 minutes to write.

You have to remember that eveyone is entitled to their opinion or point of view even if other members disagree.

I never forget that, and I never dismiss other people's opinions, but in this case I have been trying to point that I think that you are basing your ideas on a wrong perception.

I maintain that the enhanced image I posted shows that there is more on the surface than can be realised in the original image.

And I have been trying to show that there is nothing we can do to make things that were in some way hidden or disguised in an image to appear "undisguised"

How many shades of grey there are is irrelevant in this particular study. If you can produce a sharper enhanced image than I have produced I would very much like to have a look at it.

That depends on your definition of "sharper", because in most cases a sharper image has less shades of grey (or colours), and that's the sharp change in tones that gives us the illusion that things are sharper.

The voyage of scientific discovery relies on many factors but also includes enhancing an image to find out if there are surface objects and artefacts to view that cannot be observed in the original.

Once more, this is where I think you are wrong. If things are not on the original then it means that we cannot make them appear, and if different things appear then it means that they were created by whatever process we used.

If things appear faint and undefined, enhancing the image in any way can show better what's on the image, but it can never show (truthfully) what wasn't there originally.

Many things in the past have been discovered by chance. Even a photographic procedure which has been taken further than would normally be accepted by image purists may produce something new or unexpected.

Producing something new or unexpected doesn't mean it's useful.

For example, my method to enhance the "texture" of an image; I know that the final result shows things that weren't there, but it gives me a better idea of the different shades of grey because it exaggerates them.

reply to post by arianna


What appears to be a "Road" on the Surface leading to a Crater ? ............



Here's on for you to Figure out ............What Moved this Boulder ? .........Hmm.........


i297.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by arianna
In this instance I do not need to be able to tell the difference between a mound and a boulder because I know that they are neither.

Isn't that trying to make the image fit your own ideas?

Don't you think that it should be the other way? Looking first at the image without any preconceived idea and then, based on what you can see on the original image, applying localized image enhancements to areas harder to see, enhancing the shadows in the brighter areas and enhancing the light in the darker areas?

If you did all that and think that what the image shows is not craters, boulders and boulder tracks, what makes you think that? What clues did you find that made you think that?

Just pointing to something and saying "see, it's artificial" makes it difficult for all other people to understand how you reach that conclusion, and just saying "I know it" doesn't sound that scientific and doesn't help in keeping the discussion flowing.

aliens

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by arianna

 

What appears to be a "Road" on the Surface leading to a Crater ? ............



Here's on for you to Figure out ............What Moved this Boulder ? .........Hmm.........

i297.photobucket.com...

edit on 17-11-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

Maybe its not a boulder at all,but an ancient mining vehicle or ancient alien moon rover...

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Nothing can be determined or surmised with any clarity in such a closed in shot, examining the surrounding area could lend an indication of what what moved this particular rock. But looking at the uneven trail indicates the rock was either bouncing to a landing from crater ejecta or impact because it suggests some speed, if more of the trail were seen we might see the unevenness converge indicting a slowing from a faster speed, like an impact. I've posted the Marshal Impact Monitoring site a couple times already in this thread and observed are at least two impacts of rocks over a pound in size a impacting the moon every month.

reply to post by Illustronic


That Sounds Reasonable., Thanks .

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Sorry the link is on the other Strange Rocks on the Moon thread. This thread is just 2 pages long. I hate to be one to continuously link the same source. Anyway here's the link since it may be even another thread, it is an interesting and important site, it also has images and movies of impacts and help amateur astronomers also find them while they are up and monitoring them.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by arianna

 

That indeed may be your opinion but other members who have many years as amateurs and even professional photographs before digital cameras etc took over know you are talking rubbish.

The fact you can't tell the difference between a crater and a mound shown on other thread were you have posted the same picture proves the point ArMaP makes.

I can assure you after many years of research and analysis of images, not only of the lunar terrain but other planets as well, that I know what I am talking about when it comes to making an in-depth analysis of a photographic view.

Just to set the record straight, I have never maintained these particular features were boulders or mounds. What I have maintained, by producing enhanced versions of the views, is that these features are something completely different to what the majority of members seem to believe they are. The features really can only be realized when viewing an enhanced or 3-D version of the view,