Wires on mars....

I have read the whole topic and I have to say im having a lot of education on the pixels ,software,etc,etc...but the question from here on now is are we gonna debunk something that is computer generated???IF so why bother sending a machine that cost millions of dollars just to make believe the public and NASA themselves that what we are looking at is real or not???...pointless!!...some of that pics are not here just because,read between the lines ,as far as we know we know that they know,that we know,understand???IM not confident that taking pics of rocks and horizons is the whole mission is it??.....and if so why isnt the rover equipped with a rel;iable camera???.......if you been in a junkyard you know how parts on the ground look like....

I can't see anything. Why can I never see anything? Wires? Tubing? You know those pics that test your perception? The pic below is an example of what I am referring to. Well, I always see both. I can also find the images within 3d stereograms with ease. However, these Mars anomaly pics people are always posting make me feel like a complete retard.

Originally posted by cloaked4u
haven't you ever heard of E.T phone home. Well the little guy has to call from somewhere now doesn't he. Interesting, how come E.T has to use wires? Seems old fashioned to me. You think he would have a cell phone or somethin.

Can we see an even larger pic of this. I don't see any wires at all. E.T get with the times man.

All i see is a rock. Sound familiar.

cmon. everyone can see it is a giorignak

I'd like to point out something that was said earlier today:

Originally posted by senselessness

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.

After reading that, I finished reading through this whole thread waiting for someone to do exactly what senselessness said to do.........but no one has done this.

Instead, you guys are still arguing over zooming in on a single image.

So I want to Curiosity's website and looked for myself. Sure enough, there are more than one image of this rock (car muffler.....bucket........bathtub turned upside down....whatever fits your fancy right now).

Better yet, there are 2 from the LEFT NavCam and 2 from the RIGHT NavCam...........

Here's the links to those:

Left NavCam, image taken at 19:42:53. The object is in the middle, close to the right edge:


Left NavCam, image taken at 19:43:27, The object is in the middle, close to the left side:



Now for the right.

Right NavCam, image was taken at 19:42:52, the object is in the middle, close to the right edge:



Right NavCam, image was taken at 19:43:27, the object is in the middle, close to the left side




So there you go. You guys actually have 4 pictures of the same object. Maybe you could give "imaging average" a try and see what your results are.......

Or you could keep butting heads about a single over zoomed picture.........

You know how this is going to play out don't you. Some self appointed expert will tell you that you are nuts and that these are just dead pixels...maybe this thing is really not on Mars at all? Maybe it's a scam like everything else? I think the thing is taking pictures of friggin Arizona and some day we'll see a couple of prune pickers hot doggin it in their sand rail.

This is a very close view of the area in question.

At this stage I am not going to comment on the view but leave it for members to determine whether or not there is anything of interest to observe or are we just looking at some geometrical-shaped rocks?


.


Direct view - 800 pixels wide:

i985.photobucket.com...

Give me some more of that stuff. OH yeah man, it's commin in focus now, i can see the wires man, they are all over the place man. I think that blue snake is startin to come into focus also. awesome man. Yeah dude, check em out man. hey, wait. The wires are move in, wooo one is commin out of the t.v man. It looks like it's tryin to say sumtin. I think it's saying ROCKS man.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Thanks for going to the trouble. it is a very interesting area with all kinds of interesting shapes, to bad everything is JUST beyond getting a good look at. Sure would love to walk around there a bit!

Guess if they forget to remove some big stonehinge people will finally be awed!

Originally posted by AngryAlien
The "hole" is a shadow.

Got to agree with u on that.
If u look around the landscape there are several "holes"(shadows)
in the rocks.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FlySolo

For starters, software will not add 45 degree angles and corresponding shadows.

Various zooming algorithms can do all kinds of things. Here is a pixel resize of the image, zoomed about to the level of yours (about 700%). This is the only detail available in the original, all the "detail" in your image is added by the software by "guessing" what could be in between the native pixels.

Got to agree with Phage on this one, in the above image all I see are rocks, anything added by the software is pure guesswork based on what algorithms set. Placement of the rock and surrounding pixels just fooled the software to preview something which just isn't there.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Thanks for going to the trouble. it is a very interesting area with all kinds of interesting shapes, to bad everything is JUST beyond getting a good look at. Sure would love to walk around there a bit!

Guess if they forget to remove some big stonehinge people will finally be awed!

While there are no stone hinges or towering martian statues that are plain to see......the views are still very interesting.

If you go to this link here: Curiosity Sol 24 (and by the way, they are already posting Sol 26 pictures, they aren't done yet, but there are more since I made my earlier post), once you are at the link, you can scroll down to the full data product for either the left or right NavCam.

Once you have done that, notice the time stamps on the photos. Open up a different tab each photos that are close together in their time stamps. Then click on the Full Resolution links of each. Now use your mouse and click on each tab in order.

You can see the motion of the cameras panning.

Okay, maybe that's not that exciting as say, finding Marvin Martian pointing his ACME Disentagrating Gun at the rover.......But there are other things you can do too, just for the fun of it:

If you play with photoshop or paint programs, you can download the full images, and since they are greyscaled, you can make your very own color images of what you think Mars should look like.

Take a look at the photos that are showing those rock strata off in the distance, play with the colors and contrast to bring them out, and simply enjoy the beauty of seeing ancient geological processes that happened on another world.......

Again, I know, I know....it's not as exciting say if one of the cameras spotted a warrior helmet belonging to John Carter from Edgar Rice Burroughs, "Barsoom"...........

But let us keep in mind that while Curiosity can give us some images that can be breath taking, that's not what it is there for.
I see a LOT of complaints on these boards about that. 2.5 billion dollars spent on Curiosity, was not spent so that we could sit here and Ooooo and Ahhhhh over very pretty pictures.

If we want that, we need to get Nat Geo to send their own rover.

Curiosity is mainly there for the scientist and geologists that want to study Mars and to try and understand it's history in the crater it's in. Hopefully it just might find fossilized life in the rocks. But remember, it more than likely will not be some huge dinosaur fossil (I could be wrong though). More than likely it will be some strange looking single celled fossil.

And I can already see the posts on here claiming that even after finding something like that, the dissapointment that it wasn't a Martian Mummy instead!

However, in the mean time, I would like to point something out to everyone:

Yes, there have been a LOT of "OMG! Look At This (insert object here) Found On Mars!" threads since Curiosity landed. And I know it drives a lot of people up the wall.

But I'm happy to see them to tell you the truth. Because it shows how much interest there is in Curiosity. Even if many are just hoping to catch "something that NASA missed" either because they think NASA hides everything, or because they think they are better than NASA at spotting things.

To me it doesn't matter. I'm just glad to see so many people willing to look up and out there instead of only staring at their feet.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


I think this is a good find...it does not look natural to me. I guess it could be some freaky corroded Rock, but what are the chances it could make that shape?

reply to post by eriktheawful

Nice idea, just tried stacking and pixel averaging using registax but the 4 images are taken at different angles and they never really work that well, if we'd have had more shots from a stationary camera then that would have matched your expectations.

The navcam hi-res images are on the website as 1024x1024, the mast cam was 1200x1200. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA have a much higher res image of this area.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Curiosity's mast cam is FAR more superior than that.

But the image doesn't come from the mastcam or MAHLI, does it?

Like paint? Is that what you used to zoomed it to 700% I would think high resolution images on crappy software is like running a gigabit through a 56k modem.

You would think wrong. No. I didn't use MSpaint. I used something quite a bit better. But tell me, what zoom algorithm did you use? Bicubic? Bilinear? Weighted? Because you sure didn't use a pixel resize and those others all make "guesses" at what's between the pixels. Here you go, learn something about interpolation. It can't provide detail which does not exist.
www.cambridgeincolour.com...

Did the software put in all the detail in this one too?

No. The guys working on the LCROSS impact did. They marked the impact site image as a visual aid. (A video from ADG? Really? )

edit on 8/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I dont have to go to this link to back you Phage as i know You are right.
I have dissagreed with you in the past but your knowledge or (research)into
this is bang on.As i do use several types of software in my err(business).
ETA ita a frikkin rock.

Originally posted by senselessness
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.

Sir...PS, Well done Phage.

edit on 1-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)

Sir I applaud you.
Bang on.Nuff said.
Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by spoor

You are desperate, you have nothing but a few pixels and are claiming all sorts of nonsense, including flange or ball joint...

Oh I get it, you're taking what I said as something literal. Like a rusty automobile graveyard. Man, you're rich. Yes it looks like something otherwise I wouldn't be using up energy discussing it with you. But to call me desperate and use what I say out of context...go pound dirt.

Coming from someone with 2000 posts and not a single thread of your own, I don't think you have anything of value to add here.

2000 posts and nothing of value hmmm....
where on ATS does it say you have to make a thread to be credible.
The site is here for disscusion so why come up with a BS sentence
like that.Dillussions of grandeur perhaps.Spooor is making valid and
logical points.HOW VERY DARE YOU.IE we have to get rid of the
cat cause he dont eat fish, DOOOOHHH!
AS apposed to dillusion

Well after looking at all the posts an once again at the image, I can honestly say that I don't see any wires, but I do see something tho, I know people are gonna say rocks, but that object seriously does'nt look like any of the other rocks, there seems to be geometry to the object....
Thanks for the classes on pixels BTW, lol

reply to post by FlySolo
was only a zoom of an image which was already rendered.

So you dont have an original.
Shot yourself in the foot as you
dont know what was done with the image first.

Click here for more information.