Alien Anomalies

The reason you are seeing two types of imaging in GE is due to image resolution.

The imaging on the left is high resolution whereas the imaging on the right is at a much lower resolution. Note that image strips may have been captured at different times.

Hope this helps.

O'Brien wrote:

<< No, you have changed the color to be that which you prefer. Your process of color correction has no merit. >>

The colour correction applied to the image does have merit. The correction brings the chromatic values close to what they should be for the filters used and the RGB LED illmination of the content.

O'Brien wrote:

<< If you disagree, please detail (and I mean detail with the actual reproducible procedure, not just vague generalizations) the process used and the provinance of your calibration data. >>

The details of the procedure used relevant to the amount of RGB correction has been recorded, but this thread is not the place to discuss the colour of a particular image or any colour correction techniques employed.

The jpeg artifact theory according to which a tampered enough image saved in jpeg format or another format with compression algorithms incorporated cannot be cracked up is out of date, as I explained previously in my image enhancing thread, and as I told timewarp in private chat in this forum, it can be done in photoshop, at least. It has a special feature for that. => Reduce Noice.

Here is some information that may be of interest to members and visitors.


The Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS), Katlenburg-Lindau, has developed the Robotic Arm Camera (RAC) (figure) in collaboration with the University of Arizona. It also provided the focal plane with the Charge Coupled Device (CCD) detector for the Optical Microscope (MECA-OM). RAC and MECA-OM have the same CCD and share a common readout electronics that is located elsewhere and can serve one detector (RAC or MECA-OM) at a given time.

The RAC was originally built for the Mars Surveyor Lander 2001. After canceling of that mission the RAC was stored in a clean room and re-activated in 2005. Its development and integration was largely covered by funds from the Max Planck Society. Since 2007 the German Space Agency (DLR) supports the operation of the instrument during Phoenix surface operations. This support also includes participation in Operational Readiness Tests (ORT) prior to landing.

The RAC is a camera with a double Gauss lens system and a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) detector. The focus can be adjusted by moving the lens system back and forth with respect to the fixed CCD. In that way the object to be imaged can be placed at any distance (> 13 mm) from the front window of the camera. In extreme close-up mode the imaging scale is 1:1 and each pixel corresponds to 23 microns at the location of the target.

The RAC also has a transparent sapphire cover that protects the front window of the camera against dust contamination. During normal image acquisition the cover shall be open.

The RAC has two lighting units that are composed of red, green and blue Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and are mounted, respectively, above and below the camera chassis (figure). These LED assemblies allow lighting of targets in all three wavelength ranges. Acquiring images under these three lighting conditions provides color information of the targets and allows for generation of true-color images of these targets.

Source: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/phoenix/rac/

Timewarp wrote:

---

I believe the the query relating to quality refers to the far left section of an image captured by the Robotic Arm Camera (RAC) onboard the Phoenix lander - image #lg_7851.

---

First, let's get some terms correct.

This is not "an image" captured by the RAC. It is a highly processed image derived from at least three (and almost certainly more) individual images captured by the RAC. A number of different images (several dozens) were taken at different focus positions, different exposures, and different filters. I am almost sure that different sections of the different focus position images are composited together, because of the two clumps that are 25% in from the right edge. The clump against the backstop ledge is in focus, and so is the clump that is considerably more towards the camera. Looking at the individual images available on the PDS, only one should be in focus while the other is out of focus. Therefore I suspect the best available area from each was used. I also suspect that finer resolution is achieved by pixel averaging between multiple images. Then specific colors are applied based on the filters used. The entire image is then cropped to just show the region of interest at the tip of the scoop.

The photo credit shows how many hands have had responsibility for producing it: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Max Planck Institute

The image, a highly processed press release image, designed to look good for release to media outlets, is then posted on the University of Arizona web site. Not a NASA data retreival web site, but the UofA's Phoenix Mission PR web site. The image is released in .jpg format for simple download.

I have had to repeat many, many times the following. It pains me that I have to do so again. DO NOT USE JPG IMAGES DOWNLOADED FROM PUBLIC RELATIONS WEB SITES AND ATTEMPT TO DERIVE ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC DATA FROM THEM.

They are not valid as primary science data. Unless you're familiar with the processing done (and *all* images have some level of processing or else you'd be looking at a stream of numbers) you can't know what was done to the image. We know that contrast and brightness are automatically stretched on some web sites. Any color image has had to be hand processed at some level.

Go look at the original monochrome images in the PDS and it's obvious that the region in question (and another in the top middle of the cropped image) has a large bright out-of-focus saturated area that detracts from the pretty media picture the PR people wanted to show. The bright area was completely saturated, and so contained no discernable information. So they were processed out as a part of the extensive processing for this particular image.

Here's a section of the PDS image where you can see each pixel (except where the image saturates and then all the pixels are pegged at pure white).

Source: Zoomed and cropped image from PDS, Phoenix RAC file ID rs026eff898515642_13200mdm1

 

The take home message? Don't blow up a jpg of a highly processed multiple-image image 500x and then try to draw conclusions about the conspiratorial processing done on it, especially when anyone has access to minimally processed source data (or at least far closer to source data).

Timewarp wrote:

---

whereas the rest of the section is grossly pixellated as though, for some unknown reason,  has undergone some form of severe digital modification.

---

The pixellation you show is by no means unknown. It's a jpg. You're looking at jpg artifacts. I can't believe that by this time you're still fooled by jpg artifacts. How many times do I have to say DON'T ZOOM IN ON A JPG AND EXPECT TO RETRIEVE ACCURATE INFORMATION.

Timewarp wrote:

---

NASA has said that the images taken by the RAC are true RGB quaility. The images shown above are not displaying the original RGB colours and the original image has been modified to show the content with an overall reddish hue.

---

This statement is not correct. The images taken through different color filters *can* be converted to true RGB, but only if you have knowledge of the calibration levels of the illumination diodes. If you make the claim that the image is not true color, then you must have knowledge of the original brightness levels of the separate images, the responses of the filters, the illumination levels of the LEDs at a minimum. Since you appear to have never even looked at the separate images, I doubt you have the rest of this information. You claim that the image is too reddish. I claim that you do not have the necessary information to make that determination.

Timewarp wrote:

---

Many of the released images have been treated in this manner and I am sure that many of the RAW originals had the correct RGB colours.

 

---

Your statement continues to give the impression that you do not understand the process by which a color image is generated. There are no "raw images with the correct RGB color". There are multiple images that must be processed together knowing image intensity, filter transmission, and illumination calibration.

Timewarp wrote:

---

Shown below is the original image, which I have colour corrected.

---

No, you have changed the color to be that which you prefer. Your process of color correction has no merit.

If you disagree, please detail (and I mean detail with the actual reproducible procedure, not just vague generalizations) the process used and the provinance of your calibration data.

 

 

 

I believe the the query relating to quality refers to the far left section of an image captured by the Robotic Arm Camera (RAC) onboard the Phoenix lander - image #lg_7851.

The upper left quadrant of the section is of finer quality, just like an analogue photograph, whereas the rest of the section is grossly pixellated as though, for some unknown reason,  has undergone some form of severe digital modification.

Shown below is the released original image followed by the sectional crop.
 
Original image #lg_7851





#Close up sectional crop from image #lg_7851 showing differences in the quality.




NASA has said that the images taken by the RAC are true RGB quaility. The images shown above are not displaying the original RGB colours and the original image has been modified to show the content with an overall reddish hue.

Many of the released images have been treated in this manner and I am sure that many of the RAW originals had the correct RGB colours.

Shown below is the original image, which I have colour corrected.


Image #lg_7851 - Colour corrected version




Image credit: NASA/JPL

I have no interest in secondhand questions. If you have specific image quality questions, go ahead and ask them yourself.This is unacceptable behaviour.

A forum is a place where we can all interact. If you want to hold a private conversation then you need to do it by private means. If you are not prepared for a discussion on the subject, why did you start the thread? The choice is yours but do not expect to continue posting in this way with this high-handed attitude.

With reference to the orbiter images, some of the images are very reasonable considering the age of the equipment used. There are image strips displaying a resolution of <1.5m per pixel but others display a resolution of >2.5m per pixel are practically useless for close visual research of the surface features.

In the case of the images captured by the SSI onboard Phoenix, a variety of images with different resolutions were released. They are 512, 1024 and 2048 pixels square. The 2048 pixels versions are ideal for visual exploration but the 512 pixels versions produce results so mediocre that it's just not worth bothering with them unless one is prepared to view an image so small that none of the surface features are recognizable.


O'Brien,

As this thread is dealing with image quality, do you have an answer to the query that qmantoo is referring to? 

O'Brien wrote: << When you said that you expected the images to be as good as from Google Earth, were you referring to orbital images of Mars being as good as overhead views in Google Earth... >>

I was referring to the quality of the narrow angle images captured by the Mars Orbital Camera and some of the images of the terrain captured by the SSI during the Phoenix mission.

O'Brien wrote:  << Timewarp: Let's please keep on topic and not divert the thread to theories about Oiléan Ruaidh. >>
  
O'Brien, what my research reveals is not theoretical any revelations are based on the original sourced material. 

Marsrocks: I grabbed the image from the several available at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20101005a.html as an example. The image does not have a "brown overlay." The color levels can be manipulated without loss of "color contrast and detail" as much as you want. It's just a matter of selecting the appropriate weighting.

Timewarp: Let's please keep on topic and not divert the thread to theories about Oiléan Ruaidh. When you said that you expected the images to be as good as from Google Earth, were you referring to orbital images of Mars being as good as overhead views in Google Earth, or that MER and Phoenix images should be as good as the ground-level "Street View" images of houses, people, trees, cars, etc. taken from Google's fleet of camera vans?

Nice image, Timewarp!

OBrien, what was your source for the image you posted?  Is it NASA processed or did you process it yourself?

It's got that brown overlay in it that obscures so much color contrast and detail.

I'm just wondering if any individuals are coming up with that brown overlay stuff on their own or if the brown processed images are unique to NASA releases.

Call it an "International homogenity of silence" or an "International homogenity of fakery".
It is no more a  problem of technology, it was and is always a social problem. The differences between the leaderships of different systems are   of a quantitative kind not of a qualitative one . It is just the maskerade of the oppresssion which makes the difference between the american and the chinese "way of life / way of death" , to choose some of the prominent ways. There are a lot of other ways, but always the same sort of people are doing the same kind of "job", which turns  the high praised  liberty of choosing into an illusion.
The same type (profile) in (pseudo-) power positions all over the world. The chief of a small tribe in Swaziland may be more or less  honest than the president of Real Madrid or the mufti of Jerusalem or the king of whatever, but their characters show some similarities.

50 years of space exploration:

CHINA ( Hey China, proud nation, hopefully you`re not that eager to repeat  the mistakes of your friends and  the mistakes of your enemies. Please show us some results of your triumphes. How about some   images of the moon? )

RUSSIA ( Hey Russia, something new in space ? )

JAPAN  ( Hey Japan, inventor of so many groundbreaking technologies, surprise the world with some emanzipation and  lift the blanket for one moment. )

INDIA ( Dreaming mother of wisdom. To close the circle from past to the future, your chance. Do not miss it.

US ( Nothing more to say for the moment. )

EUROPEAN UNION ( ESA)  ( This goes to the young  ones in Europe: Ignore the petrified ones. They have no life, just blind function. Those who show courage are those who never will be forgotten , not only in the history of planet earth, not only in the history of the solar system, but in the history of this galaxy. Starting to present some  truth to mankind. Whatever better could be done ?

Timewarp wrote:

---

As far as specifics is concerned, I would have expected the images to be as good as can be seen in Google Earth. Is this too much to ask?

---

Your specifics need to be more specific.

Are you saying that the MER and Phoenix images should be as good as images in Street View? Which Street View? There are a myriad of different resolutions in Street View taken with thousands of different cameras all over the world.

Or are you saying that the orbital images should be as good as the overhead images in Google Earth?

In either case, you should provide a specific pair of images that you want to compare, and then look at the hardware that produced each image. For instance, I don't see any Google Earth images that can produce an image even remotely as detailed as

It's all very well to insist that taking an Earth-bound technology and sending it to another planet should be a simple and trivial matter. (deleted sentence by qmantoo)

Is it too much to ask that a probe several hundred million miles away perform the same as a piece of hardware that has completely different requirements and can be sent to the repair shop if something goes wrong? Yes, it is too much to ask.

 

-- Edited by qmantoo on Monday 11th of October 2010 07:20:56 AM

I would like to make a comment on this one too.
You clearly have some expectations of a particular level of respectability and superiority that the images should have. Of course. I think everyone would expect to be able to see the structures and features in all space mission photographs. However, as you and we are well aware, there are certain aspects of the terrain which are censored and are not available to us in the images as released to the public, whether they are from the PDS or from the web portal. Our expectations - which are perfectly reasonable - are to have images that do not have parts censored. You expect that from a dictatorship or police state but not from a nation with freedom and liberty in its constitution.

What do you expect the images to look like, and how does that fulfill the mission requirements? (And which images are you looking at? If you're complaining about compression you may be ascribing faults to the particular web image version you've dowloaded rather than the intrinsic limitations of the hardware.)
You yourself have explained the camera and lens specs and you understand the image quality issue. Why do you ask us when you know yourself that the images that are released to the public are not of the best quality available.

We have shown our expectation in this thread and it is obvious from this what is possible and what is 'fed' to us. Rather than challenging these kind of statements, why not explain why the quality is NOT as it should be according to what you know and according to the link I have just given. This is an excellent example of what is possible.

Please  do not get sidetracked into addressing the subject of the image, but look at the quality since that is the point of this thread. There are pixellated areas and there are areas of the example image where there are no pixels - even at 500x. So, please explain that.