A photographic challenge for image wizards!

Not sure what you're looking for, but here's my stab at it.




Bit more contrast, bit more definitio I think. Its really interesting how the craters are all pretty much along or on the end of the lines. The rocks sticking out of the groundcast shadows on their left, so I think the one to the lower, left middle is definately a crater, whats the line going to it all about though.

I did find a really good person in the shades too, looks like a person had been added, a head and shoulders photo of a man, early twenties, white I'd say.

Originally posted by arianna
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.

Then can you please post an in-depth analysis instead of just stating your opinion as if it was a fact?

Thanks in advance.

The features really can only be realized when viewing an enhanced or 3-D version of the view,

Doesn't that mean that the features are not real, because they do not exist in the original image, and that they are (apparently) being created by the "enhancing"?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
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.

Then can you please post an in-depth analysis instead of just stating your opinion as if it was a fact?

Thanks in advance.

The features really can only be realized when viewing an enhanced or 3-D version of the view,

Doesn't that mean that the features are not real, because they do not exist in the original image, and that they are (apparently) being created by the "enhancing"?

I have said that the features that appear as mounds or craters are neither. I will post an image later with an explanation as to why I believe this to be the case.

The features showing in the enhanced images are definitely real. Previously, I have used the word 'hidden' when referring to features not seen in the original image. Maybe I should use the word 'embedded' which would seem to be more appropriate. Please forgive my use of words as English is not my mother tonque.

Originally posted by arianna
I have said that the features that appear as mounds or craters are neither. I will post an image later with an explanation as to why I believe this to be the case.

Great, I will wait for that.

Maybe I should use the word 'embedded' which would seem to be more appropriate. Please forgive my use of words as English is not my mother tonque.

It's not my mother tongue either, so you are obviously forgiven.

The main image was rotated 30-degrees to the left and a sectional crop was made. The surface detail begins to make some sense in this view. Unfortunately, I am unable to sharpen the view any further otherwise distortion would start to appear.

I will leave it to members to decide what surface objects and other features there are to view.



Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

I finally started looking at the many tools available in ISIS, and one of those is used to apply some calculations to the image, based on some input parameters. The one I used removes "the albedo, allowing the user to see more terrain", as they say, and this was the result.



I will post more images as soon as I find how to work with all the programs and parameters.