Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wildespace

 

I don't think the raw images are "calibrated".

Quoted from msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov...

Calibration on Mars

MSL carries the MAHLI Flight Calibration Target for color/white balance, resolution and focus checks, and verification of UV LED functionality. The target will be mounted in a vertical position on the rover (i.e., vertical when the rover is on a surface with a slope of 0°) to help prevent dust accumulation.

And looking at the raw images from MAHLI, the difference between them and the Mastcam ones is clear. The rover never look so white on Mastcam images.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by wildespace

That doesn't quite say the raw images are calibrated. It says the target is for white balancing. That can be done with the raw images (as demonstrated above). The Mastcam also has a calibration target.

In-flight calibration uses the MER Pancam spare calibration target with magnets mounted beneath the four color chips and "white" and gray surfaces to provide dust-free spots (following the approach of the Phoenix SSI team).

msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov...

I am going through all the raw images and so far I stick to my theory that MAHLI captures true image of mars environment whereas Mastcam his heavily caliberated to show a red hue.

Maybe the reason why MAHLI is showing something different and possibly real stuff is that the caliberation does not work.

Besides what I have read about MAHLI, it is more like your 2MP mobile camera.

reply to post by 0pass

I am going through all the raw images and so far I stick to my theory that MAHLI captures true image of mars environment whereas Mastcam his heavily caliberated to show a red hue.

And what is your theory on why that would be done? Intentionally? Why?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 0pass

 

I am going through all the raw images and so far I stick to my theory that MAHLI captures true image of mars environment whereas Mastcam his heavily caliberated to show a red hue.

And what is your theory on why that would be done? Intentionally? Why?

I think the most likely reason for not revealing the truth is to have a commercial advantage over other countries. Look at the Artic region which for not uncommon reasons similar to mars.

Russia, the US, Denmark, Canada are all fighting to get control over it as the ice is melting there.

If there is abundant water discovered (not necesary to have lakes and rivers) on Mars, then we could have colonies there. If the news is anounced, country like China and maybe even India will start feverishly to launch missions to Mars.

NASA has been to the moon so many times, put feets on the moon and never did they say anything about water on the moon until a country like India sent one single orbiter to Moon and discovered there is water there and later verified by followup missions by NASA.

And if there is water, then there could be underground life. The surface of Mars is a ruin of ancient topography and possibly ancient life. We may find some of it on the surface and that is the public mission of NASA.

But the real mission that will not be so easily revealed is the existence of current life even microbes.

reply to post by 0pass

I think the most likely reason for not revealing the truth is to have a commercial advantage over other countries.

But according to you, the MAHLI is showing the "true image of mars environment". That doesn't make sense if something is being concealed, does it?

If there is abundant water discovered (not necesary to have lakes and rivers) on Mars, then we could have colonies there.

Lack of water is only one of many problems to be dealt with in creating a Martian colony.

NASA has been to the moon so many times, put feets on the moon and never did they say anything about water on the moon until a country like India sent one single orbiter to Moon and discovered there is water there and later verified by followup missions by NASA.

You are not very familiar with the history about the discovery of water on the Moon. But you know that NASA was "riding" on Chandrayaan, right? It was not only a project of India.

But the real mission that will not be so easily revealed is the existence of current life even microbes.

We may find some of it on the surface and that is the public mission of NASA.

In the long term yes, but the MSL is not really looking for life. That will be for later missions.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 0pass

 

I think the most likely reason for not revealing the truth is to have a commercial advantage over other countries.

But according to you, the MAHLI is showing the "true image of mars environment". That doesn't make sense if something is being concealed, does it?

Can you do a fact check please on the raw images...NASA is possibly trying to fix this apparent mistake without much success. The last MAHLI raw set was Sol98 wherease MastCam is Sol125.

For the time being, they are taking care of existing image sets by giving various explainations such as you have been trying to do.

If there is abundant water discovered (not necesary to have lakes and rivers) on Mars, then we could have colonies there.

Lack of water is only one of many problems to be dealt with in creating a Martian colony.

Water is definitely the first step and rest of things will fit in place. Already it is announced that the radiation on Mars surface is not a big deal as was assumed earlier.

NASA has been to the moon so many times, put feets on the moon and never did they say anything about water on the moon until a country like India sent one single orbiter to Moon and discovered there is water there and later verified by followup missions by NASA.

You are not very familiar with the history about the discovery of water on the Moon. But you know that NASA was "riding" on Chandrayaan, right? It was not only a project of India.

I am from India and have been following up the Chandrayan mission in detail. I was not amused when I came to know the US had some degree of control of what India will discover.

But the real mission that will not be so easily revealed is the existence of current life even microbes.

We may find some of it on the surface and that is the public mission of NASA.

In the long term yes, but the MSL is not really looking for life. That will be for later missions.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wildespace

 

That doesn't quite say the raw images are calibrated. It says the target is for white balancing.

Yeah, white balancing is what I meant. The Mastcam returns non-balanced images, which NASA have to white-balance themselves (as seen in many of their public releases), while raw images from MAHLI come already white-balanced, and thus closer to what the human eye would see. I actually like looking at MAHLI images, they don't have that urine-yellow-orange cast to them like pics from the Mastcam do.

Here's a couple of examples of a raw (but white-balanced) MAHLI image, to show what I mean:


Looks very much like it's on Earth.

Originally posted by 0pass
I am going through all the raw images and so far I stick to my theory that MAHLI captures true image of mars environment whereas Mastcam his heavily caliberated to show a red hue.

Then why does Mars appear red in telecopes?

I don't see much red in Mastcam images, the colour can be better described as butterscotch or light brown. And this colour is due to the dust in the atmosphere, as well as the coating of iron oxide on the surface. If the martian surface and atmosphere were any other colour (like blue skies and green vegetation), it would be visible in telescopes.

Originally posted by 0pass
The pictures taken by Mahli for the "river" is distinctly "blue" and the sky "light blue"

It's not, you are either looking at a badly calibrated monitor, you do not see colours in the same way other people do or you are being fooled by something.

To see if the sky (or any place) is blue or not, just put that image in a image processing program like GIMP (free) and change the saturation of the image. By doing that you will keep the colours but you will change "how strong" they look.

This is what I got after three passes at a 100% enhancement of the saturation.

(click on the thumbnail to see the full image)


Does it still look blue to you?

When I said blue, I did not mean blue as in distinctly blue. I would call it something like grey blue or cyan grey.. This is with respect to the MAHLI images.

And I mean blue in contrast to the pink or light red color of the sky from MASTCAM.

Once again, I am not yet concluding there is a river or water body on mars until i see more closeup raw images of the river like part. It could well turn out to be some dark color (in contrast to the red surrounding areas) fine grained sedimentary basin.

But one thing is sure by what I have seen so far and that is there is water in the soil as observed when Curiosity wheels burrow or its arm scoops below the surface revealing mud like soil inside the top fine layer of dusted red color sand like layer.

This is the true color image of Mars that we do not see often. And this is from MASTCAM



In fact, if you use a graphic editor like IrfanView and do color correction on any of the MASTCAM images, it will show less red hue. Do this to your own picture taken from a camera and there would be not much difference.

Originally posted by 0pass
This is the true color image of Mars that we do not see often. And this is from MASTCAM

How can you know if that's the true colour or not?

Having said that, I think that photo is closer to what we would see on Mars at a time with little dust in the air than most other photos, but if the usual situation is having dust in the air then the sky can never look blue, the same thing happens here on Earth and I have seen it with my own eyes.

In fact, if you use a graphic editor like IrfanView and do color correction on any of the MASTCAM images, it will show less red hue. Do this to your own picture taken from a camera and there would be not much difference.

If you use a graphics editor to do colour correction it's obvious the colours will be different, that's why it's called "colour correction".

Automated colour correction corrects things to what the algorithm doing the correction "thinks" would be the natural colours of the scene, like a blue sky or correct skin colours.

With manual colour correction I can make a photo turn to any colour I want.

Here is an interesting picture.



Observe closely the color corrected image. Do you see rocks here or some kind of mechanical object.

Originally posted by 0pass
This is the true color image of Mars that we do not see often. And this is from MASTCAM

We see these kind of images with almost every Curiosity news update. It's a colour-balanced version of this raw image: www.nasa.gov...
In fact, I think they went a bit overboard with the correction. Here's my version, corrected in Paint Shop Pro:


Let's put some things into perspective. The human eye (or brain) adjusts to a particular lighting scene, so for example the orange light of incandescent light bulbs doesn't seem so orange. Consumer digital cameras do that for us automatically as well, so that the photos appear approximately how the eye would see it. However, if you shoot in RAW format with a professional camera, the incandescent light will appear notably orange (the way it really is) because the camera hasn't made any adjustments to it. The image can then be white-balanced using software.

That, I'm positive, is the case with the Mastcam images: they arrive with the notable orange/yellow cast (due to the dusty martian atmosphere) and then get white-balanced by the NASA. An image can get white-balanced to a varying degree, so there is no definite and absolute "true colour". Personally, the Mastcam images that were white-balanced by NASA look a bit too blue to me. I think images from MAHLI (which were white-balanced on the spot by the camera's software) are closer to what the human eye would see there. I hope they take a few panoramas with MAHLI. The only one so far is Curiosity's self-portrait:

Now, this image is a pleasure to look at.

Yes. It seems like what one would see if set foot on Mars with our naked eyes.

Originally posted by 0pass
Observe closely the color corrected image. Do you see rocks here or some kind of mechanical object.

The image is too small to get a good look at those objects, but to me they look like rocks, both on the original and in the colour corrected version (should they look different?).

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by 0pass
Observe closely the color corrected image. Do you see rocks here or some kind of mechanical object.

The image is too small to get a good look at those objects, but to me they look like rocks, both on the original and in the colour corrected version (should they look different?).

You are right. A closer look might just turn out to be rocks. Though from this distance it looks more like an axe

I saw this and felt compelled to add an authoritative observation stemming from 15+ years of personal and professional graphic application experience ranging the gambit of photo editing software packages. It took me less than 5 seconds of observation to identify what appears to be the use of a clone and patch tool commonly used to clean artifacts out of photos during preproduction on a photo intended to be commonly viewed (for one reason or another).

Part of me wants believe it is actual repeating formations of physical rocks, as this would indicate a current sentient life-form (non affixed rock formations would not last long past the absence of a sentient culture).

However, I wonder -if the clone tool was used; which my professional opinion is that it was, how did the sample set of rocks become arranged in such a way? Unless multiple phases of cloning and sampling took place where an individual sampled one area containing a rock, then proceeded to cover a protrusion in the subsequent shape, rendering a "rock artifact outline".

The aforementioned scenario I find hard to follow because if you are a graphic designer tasked with the goal of obfuscating a questionable artifact in this image, why would you create a sample that so blatantly fingerprints itself by incorporating a rock pattern.

Something is afoot.

Originally posted by ainsley
Hi all,

I noticed the below while perusing the Mars Curiosity Sol2 360 pan image. My "curiosity" has got the better of me, are these stitching artefacts or photo shop clone tool "masks".

I doubt there is anything to hide, but I thought I would pose the question and give the evidence or sorts for discussion.

Sol2 360 pan anomalies

Source Link

Exact location (co-ords) url

What do you think ATS?

ains,

edit on 31-8-2012 by ainsley because: Spring Cleaning

reply to post by ahybrid


I suggest you look at the original photos instead of looking at a mosaic.

You can see them all here.