Nasa use "image manipulation" on Curiosity's photos?

reply to post by BrainGarden

To me, It is obvious that the entire surface of Mars
is littered with pieces of broken machinery.
Very small pieces, large ones,
Hunks of molten metal nearly everywhere that you look,

Obvious?

If so then maybe you could explain to dullards like myself who seem to be completely missing the "obvious".

reply to post by BrainGarden


I agree with Occam, there are no signs of machinery on Mars, except for the stuff we have put there. In fact your comment is the first I have ever heard of it. If there was machinery there from an ancient civilisation it would be long buried. Stuff here on earth gets buried only after a few centuries, and no it isn't because us humans are purposely burying these things.

NASA has admitted to editing photos .. they process it for color correction and brightnesss/contrast to try to give a more accurate representation of what's in the photos.. they've addressed that more than once.. the last time I heard them talking about it was a live press event on ustream.tv .. they post the raw low resolution images and then edit and post the full resolution version when it's available.. so it's no surprise to see one change and be more visible

As for the second photo .. the perspective is different.. the second photo looks to more over the raised sand giving it the illusion of a flatter surface... the rocks are there but with the perspective change we can't see some of them because they are now out of frame.

Also the left image has already been processed for color and contrast..the right image hasn't so it loses some detail..

Nothing to see here

Originally posted by BrainGarden
Great post Arken,
To me, It is obvious that the entire surface of Mars
is littered with pieces of broken machinery.
Very small pieces, large ones,
Hunks of molten metal nearly everywhere that you look,
As thou, at one time there was in fact, Thriving Industry.
I see a planet that has been totally decimated and
obliterated. A once great civilization Blown to tiny Bits and pieces.

Is this only me ?
Come on NASA ,It's time to STOP the LIES.

edit on America/Chicagopm4830America/ChicagoThu, 22 Nov 2012 19:21:48 -060011 3021 by BrainGarden because: purification of words

Machinery pieces and molten metal everywhere you look?.... source please? .. I've seen lots of mars images over the years and never seen machinery or giant hunks of metal littering the surface.. you make it sound like it's just EVERYWHERE when it seems to be nowhere..

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
I am fine with this too IF they make all corrections and changes completely transparent and obvious when they present information.

They did, that's why they say:

The image at right has been white-balanced to show what the same area would look like under the lighting conditions on Earth.

NASA clearly indicates the "raw images" available as such.

It never ceases to amaze me that then someone gets a NASA image from another source and makes some claim that it's not a raw image. I don't see the conspiracy, unless they get the image from the location NASA calls "raw images". If it came from there and was photoshopped then we might have a discussion. But this is just silly, especially when NASA indicates they've manipulated the image.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by BrainGarden

 

To me, It is obvious that the entire surface of Mars
is littered with pieces of broken machinery.
Very small pieces, large ones,
Hunks of molten metal nearly everywhere that you look,

Obvious?

If so then maybe you could explain to dullards like myself who seem to be completely missing the "obvious".

ATS member Zaiger realized some people were having trouble seeing what should be completely obvious, so marked up an image for people that don't find it obvious. I might have missed the time machine myself without Zaiger's help.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There must have been mechs there to build all the stuff we see everywhere on Mars like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb8ed94de05e.jpg[/atsimg]
That missile silo didn't build itself right?

(I borrowed that picture from zaiger, not sure where he got it, he might have made it),

Originally posted by BrainGarden
To me, It is obvious that the entire surface of Mars
is littered with pieces of broken machinery.

So, if it's obvious to you that Mars is littered with pieces of broken machinery, is that that the Mars surface shows? Doesn't it show pieces of broken buildings where the machinery was? Or was all that machinery in the open air? Who used the machinery? Where are the pieces of the buildings where those that used all that machinery are?

Is this only me ?

It's not just you, as I have seen other people saying the same thing, but I have never seen a thing that can only be explained as a broken piece of machinery and not as a rock.

Come on NASA ,It's time to STOP the LIES.

You shouldn't call other people liars based just on your opinions about what you see, specially when most people do not see what you claim to see.

I was trying to stitch individual Apollo images into a panorama when I noticed the problem: certain rocks appear twice, or misaligned, on the edges of 2 frames. Some amount of photoshopping is absolutely necessary if you want a naturally-looking result.

As has been mentioned, Curiosity's self-portrait was assembled from many separate photos, the camera arm would have been moving around a lot to take those images. That would have created the problem I just described.

Here are the individual raw images used to take this self-portrait, see if you can make a better job.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by wildespace
I was trying to stitch individual Apollo images into a panorama when I noticed the problem: certain rocks appear twice, or misaligned, on the edges of 2 frames. Some amount of photoshopping is absolutely necessary if you want a naturally-looking result.

That happens mostly because of the slightly different perspective of the same object when seen in two different photos taken when the camera was in a slightly different position, the distortion caused by the lens only makes this worse. That's why that problem doesn't happen to far away objects.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by wildespace
I was trying to stitch individual Apollo images into a panorama when I noticed the problem: certain rocks appear twice, or misaligned, on the edges of 2 frames. Some amount of photoshopping is absolutely necessary if you want a naturally-looking result.

That happens mostly because of the slightly different perspective of the same object when seen in two different photos taken when the camera was in a slightly different position, the distortion caused by the lens only makes this worse. That's why that problem doesn't happen to far away objects.

Agreed, although what we have in the panorama as per the op's first example is one rock directly 'replaced' with another different rock in exactly the same position as the original rock, alongside a smaller rock which was alongside the original rock, and that smaller rock is still in the same relative position as it was with the original rock. That's why I said it is sloppy work and more like a pasted affair, and little to do with perspective in that particular case. All three rocks do appear in their original positions in the 'single' frame however.

Originally posted by smurfy
Agreed, although what we have in the panorama as per the op's first example is one rock directly 'replaced' with another different rock in exactly the same position as the original rock, alongside a smaller rock which was alongside the original rock, and that smaller rock is still in the same relative position as it was with the original rock. That's why I said it is sloppy work and more like a pasted affair, and little to do with perspective in that particular case. All three rocks do appear in their original positions in the 'single' frame however.

A panorama is a "pasted affair" in which you try to align the photos, compensating for perspective and lens distortion.

When there's too much distortion it's not easy and to align the main subject (in this case the rover) with the other photos sometimes a photo must be rotated and distorted itself, making all the things that are not the main subject move when compared with the other photos.

I know because I have made several panoramas myself.

As my previous post was removed lets just say that the youtube poster hasn't a clue about how this picture was taken and stitched together and because some people that have seen his video also DON'T understand the problems then threads get created once again about NASA being up to something, when it's really a lack of knowledge and an over zealousness to try to prove that NASA is up to no good that's the real issue.

Have a look at this image (click on picture for hi-res)



Do you people who think NASA up to no good think that the VERY curved horizon on the above picture is correct.

Due to the camera, distance taken from and focal length there are distortions.

Here is an edited version a nice hi-res picture. (click on picture for hi-res)



Now maybe if some of these youtube IDIOTS having a witch hunt for NASA put as much effort into learning even a little about photography ,exposure, depth of field etc etc they would not post idiotic videos and then threads like this would not NEED to be created!

The wind on the mars is very strong, and it will blow the rocks out of position as well as the sand.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Correct.

Plus, this image was stitched together to show the rover, not to show the rocks. It is very difficult to stretched and skew each of the pieces of this mosaic of images to make them all fit together seamlessly, and getting the rover (mostly) seamless was the goal here -- NOT getting the stitching at the rocks to be seamless.

Originally posted by Avgudar
The wind on the mars is very strong, and it will blow the rocks out of position as well as the sand.

Not from what I have seen and not from what we are told about Mars atmosphere.

Winds may be strong (high velocities), but as the atmosphere is very thin when compared with that of the Earth the effect of the wind is not as destructive as it is on Earth.

From all the photos I have seen (really thousands), I have never seen two photos from the same place where rocks had moved.