Wires on mars....

I dont see why people are still arguing over the zoom.

Ive shown examples on the first or second page. Nothing like CSI, this is real software that is used all the time!

Some people just arent willing to believe what their eyes are showing them.

what bothers me about this thread is that there is/was a potential for good debate...a possibility to present credible information by both sides in an attempt to explain.

what appears to have happened is that the debate has turned into a mudslinging frenzy with some participants demanding to be believed and that those who don't or can't see their view.
if i am not seeing what they say is there then i must be unimaginative or worse.

too bad.

i am NOT afraid to find life on mars...or evidence of previous life....but i have many many years of indoctrination that needs to be overcome for me to be a true believer of it.

if you want to assist me in my 'overcoming' then present me with possible evidences;
not speculations that are defended with name calling and innuendos.

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
I dont see why people are still arguing over the zoom.

Ive shown examples on the first or second page. Nothing like CSI, this is real software that is used all the time!

Some people just arent willing to believe what their eyes are showing them.

I see a rock, even on the altered zoom. I say altered because the software changes what is originally there.

I can buy the cheapest digital camera available for kids to play with, take a pic of a wire on the ground, and you will be able to see that it is a wire.

I see no wire(s).

I find it amazing that no one has asked for the original image reference so that we can all examine the artifact for ourselves instead of relying on a poor youtube reproduction.

At this stage I am not going to comment until I can find the source image and make an analysis.

Good find, but we know NASA tends to fudge released images, been doing that from the start. We need serious analysis on source material that hasn't been tampered with. Only someone with access can give that..so I gotta reserve judgement for now.

the debris of the failed european marsprobe landing?

If that is some bucket with a wire, then im now more convinced then ever before that curiosity is some where on earth in some desert and very isolated one, enough isolation for no one to see that curiosity is there.

Edit: Im very, very suspicious of some of the recent images we've seen lately.

From the video:

"Zooming into the image with Normal software makes it blurry... so the next image is zoomed using Special software"

If you need special software to zoom in, it's not a zoom.

Wow, the ignorance in this topic drives me nuts!

FlySolo, and the OP, all the images you are "zooming" are highly interpolated! You should educate yourself about image scaling and interpolation before you continue...

en.wikipedia.org...

Let me make it easy for you to understand...

In image forensics the best way to scale an image (digital zoom) is to use "nearest-neighbor interpolation" also known as "pixel resize". Basically, nearest-neighbor interpolation replaces every pixel with 4 pixels of the same color. It doesn't change any of the pixels that were originally created by the camera. However, pixel resize does tend to make images appear pixelated because all you are doing is making the original pixels larger, and you are not adding or removing any detail, it is the best when studying an image because you can study the exact pixels from the camera.

ALL the images YOU and the OP have scaled (digital zoomed) used other forms of interpolation such as bilinear, bicubic, or lanczos resampling, or other custom interpolations. Those types of interpolations can NOT and should NOT be used for image forensics because it ADDS PIXELS THAT NEVER EXISTED. The final result of that type of interpolation is a COMPLETELY COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE, and is NOT REAL. It SHOULD NOT be used for studying because you are studying something that was computer generated.

Those types of interpolation were designed to smooth images for aesthetic purposes only. To make your family vacation images look smoother when you want to scale them up a little.

Using those types of interpolation on images with preexisting compression artifacts on them will make lots of straight edges, and weird anomalies that don't actually exist anywhere other than that digital image.

---

With that said, the only real way to extract more detail from less detailed images ( like used by professional forensics labs to read a license plate number from a crappy security camera ) is to do "IMAGE AVERAGING" of MULTIPLE less detailed images. This technique is only possible if you have multiple images or multiple frames from a video. The color of each pixel of every image/frame is averaged together to reduce noise and increase clarity. There is NO OTHER WAY.

---

So, with that said... There is no "special software" that can resize a single image and get more detail from less detail. So the OP's video is highly misleading.

Almost all image editors today like Photoshop, PaintShopPro, Gimp, etc.. allow you to choose the type if scaling / resizing algorithm to use when rescaling / resizing an image. The best and only way for image forensics is to use "pixel resize" also known as "nearest-neighbor interpolation". Every other method of interpolation actually adds pixels that never existed and the final result is completely computer generated, and will create computer generated anomalies which you may think are physical objects or characteristics.

Good day.

PS, Well done Phage.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


I am a software engineer, and I have written custom interpolation algorithms, and also implemented well documented interpolation algorithms, and even created image averaging algorithms for custom applications.

None of the images you have shown in this topic were scaled using nearest-neighbor interpolation, and instead, were scaled using other forms of interpolation. That means the images you are looking at are completely computer generated. Any details you think you see in the images are potentially non-existent in reality.

Unless you have 10 or more images of the same area, stabilized them all so they are all aligned, and then averaged each pixel of every image together, you will never get more detail. Even then, with image averaging you don't get a whole lot of extra detail. Image averaging removes noise, and that reduced noise clarifies edges and certain details because it reduces the signal to noise ratio (SNR), but not by very much.

Here is a crop from the main NavCam image captured during sol 24.

A slightly larger version is available at the Direct view below.

If you're interested in finding the original image, the reference is:-

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...





Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

reply to post by AmberLeaf


this is a rock. seriously. how could you even think that it wasnt??? im laughing so hard righ now at people who truley believe this to be of alien origin. because i dont even see an antenna, or a hole.. i see a cylindrical rock casting a shadow. rock. ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCK. lol

Reminds me of It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown ...

Charlie Brown: I got a rock.

Originally posted by Kino321
and yet again, all I see is a rock.

maybe i need new glasses.

I see just a rock too....maybe some shadowing, but really......

Just to add....come on people, why would we not see rather large structures or ones that are truly sticking out of the ground like a real looking pipe. Do the Martians need to camo their stuff just in case the pesky earthlings come snooping?

Originally posted by senselessness

I am a software engineer, and I have written custom interpolation algorithms, and also implemented well documented interpolation algorithms, and even created image averaging algorithms for custom applications.

One would think if it was a curious item, we would actually get closer and check it out....I guess NASA just doesn't know a Martian item when they see one...

Originally posted by lunarcartographer
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

I spent my career as a cartographer and a professional photogrammetrist; including contract work for NASA's lunar landing projects. A photogrammetrist uses photogrammetric technology to extract measurements, make maps, gather intelligence, and interpret data from various imaging technologies..

Rocks come in all shapes, this is nothing but rocks and an over active imagination. That said, there are more interesting but unproved possibilities and anomalies elsewhere on this planet.

But if a rock can look like anything does not make something that could be a rock a rock! it also could be the item the "rock" looks like. That is why some people find fossils and others pass them over as interesting shaped rocks.

reply to post by senselessness


No one is saying interpolation doesn't happen, just at what point?

Is it happening here?


Or is it happening here?


How about now?


Would you feel safe to say it's not? All three pictures have the same detail and hasn't changed at all.

Humans try to make sense out of patterns; same way you see faces or bunnies in clouds.

For every 100 rocks that are randomly shaped, there's gonna be a couple that are shaped like something familiar. I'm surprised there hasn't been a Jesus rock yet.

reply to post by arianna


You also used an incorrect interpolation algorithm to scale your image. The interpolation you used added pixels that didn't exist in the original image. The "details" you see in your image are not real.

reply to post by FlySolo



Let me show you the correct way to scale the image...

The RAW image from NASA below is 1024x1024 pixels.

RAW IMAGE FROM NASA

The below image is a 128x128 crop from the RAW image of the important area.



I will now scale the image 400% using "nearest-neighbor interpolation" also known as "pixel resize" to 512x512. This is the correct way to scale an image:



As you can see, ALL the original pixel data from the camera has been saved. No pixel data has been altered.

The original crop was 128x128 pixels. When I scaled the image each pixel was replaced with 4 pixels of the exact same color. If you count the 4x4 squares in the 512x512 image, you will see there is 128 across, and 128 down. That is the correct way to scale an image for forensic analysis. Any other type of scaling interpolation will add pixels that never exist.

Here is the WRONG way to scale an image:


The above image was scaled 400x using Bilinear Interpolation. As you can see, there is no longer 4x4 squares 128x128. That is because the original pixel data has been lost, and what we see is computer generated pixels. It was artificially "smoothed" by the computer. It added pixel data that didn't exist. In turn, it added "details" that didn't exist.

reply to post by senselessness


I get it. But what I also get is, you guys are using interpolation as an explanation that goes beyond what needs to be explained. Let me put it this way. You're over analyzing it to the point of obfuscation