Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

reply to post by BuzzDengue


That's a boatload. Lots of that seems to be photo and pixel artifacts. I like the snake though. Will look them over again.

funbox
where did he go ?

I think it's in the same place, marked here in red.

reply to post by funbox


Much better to zoom towards the coordinates on your own equipment and view.
A lot is lost in visual translation to get these post-worthy.
I need a serious upgrade in my graphics software and capabilities...

funbox
where did he go ?

funBox

This is amazing Funbox. Really!

Forgery tools works at full power at Mike Malin's hut....
Stars!

reply to post by Aleister


Hi Aleister,
Go to the source data a and view... no pixel artifacts there... just looks bad on my blow-up crud...

funbox
reply to post by Aleister

 

did this one already get highlighted ?, from the area next to Blueshifts clam

is that loop connecting the gap in rock? is that the shadow *merged* to the left?

funBOx

Looks like a watermelon. Can't tell if that's a loop or part of the rock, but it's worth a look and a measurement for first down.

reply to post by Aleister


5 second interval btween pics

and a 20 min break for me , who do I goto see about my wages?



funBox

reply to post by ArMaP


Very possibly, you either may have found the culprit or on the first pic the rock you point to is behind the image. That gives a likely explanation though, and a slower look will either nail it down or nail it up.

reply to post by funbox


Ah, will look. Check is in the mail (coming over on a slow boat from China). Thanks, this should go a long way in giving this rock the bums rush.

reply to post by BuzzDengue


The image below is a good example of how the JPEG artefacts interfere with the image.



We can see "columns" created by the JPEG compression, all with the same width (at 100% zoom, if there's a square or a column with a width multiple of 8 then it's most like a JPEG artefact), we can see that, in some areas, those columns are made of thinner (1 pixel in the original?) columns, almost all with the same width and we can also see changes in colour (JPEG compression changes the colours to make it easier for us to see things while using a high compression).

Working with images that small with such a high compression is a waste of time, you are analysing the way JPEG compression works more than what's on Mars.

reply to post by ArMaP


great example Armap, you can see them quite clearly on most of the images, quite east to identify really, when you've seen enough of them that is
is therw any chance you can isolate them from the image? I want to see if you're seeing what I consider jpg artifacts

funBox

ArMaP
reply to post by BuzzDengue

 

The image below is a good example of how the JPEG artefacts interfere with the image.

We can see "columns" created by the JPEG compression, all with the same width (at 100% zoom, if there's a square or a column with a width multiple of 8 then it's most like a JPEG artefact), we can see that, in some areas, those columns are made of thinner (1 pixel in the original?) columns, almost all with the same width and we can also see changes in colour (JPEG compression changes the colours to make it easier for us to see things while using a high compression).

Working with images that small with such a high compression is a waste of time, you are analysing the way JPEG compression works more than what's on Mars.

Admittedly, my blow up shots are anemic, the archway still shows clearly in a wider angle view... is it an archway? Thanks

reply to post by jeep3r



This grouping has something going on.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by funbox


In red, the "columns" made up of several 8 x 8 pixel blocks.
In yellow, the areas with colours that are different from the surrounding areas.
In blue, the areas that show "stripes" that may have been created by the JPEG compression to give and idea of an intermediate colour.



As you can see, there are areas that I don't know if they are JPEG artefacts or really what was on the photo, and that's the biggest problem with these artefacts. Also, the changes in colour are a little more unpredictable, as the JPEG algorithm changes the colours to help us see the colours it replaced or to see better colour transitions, that's why a checkers board with too much JPEG compression shows green and magenta lines between the black and white squares to makes us see a smoother transition.
In some cases we cannot really know if the colours were in the original or not. The only obvious thing are the 8 x 8 square blocks, but even that gets blurred with the zooming.

I hope that helps.

reply to post by ArMaP


excellent illustration there Armap , I think you have the gif of the gab

and as near as I could have pointed out in a gif I now don't have to do

funBox

I browsed through a lot of images but I didn't see that anyone had noticed the driver of the wheeled object? Well, his corpse...



Laying to the right of the wheel.

No artifacts in this image of a bullet from another thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


interesting one that like something buried or infused



funBox

reply to post by funbox


All I can see is fossilized rock turds.

funbox
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

ahh yeah that one

but now that you mention dragonfly , it reminds me of some earlier dismissive browsing, let me see if I can find it

funBox

Wow! I finally found the bottle I tossed into the Pacific 40 years ago. I have heard of Rogue Waves before, I just didn't know how high they were.

Or, it's just another rock.