Jon, I'm afraid that you're still confused about the most basic fact in this discussion: i.e. which image is which.
You wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke
It is not a case that one is the raw image and the other processed, both are processed, the left hand image is by Parker, the right hand by MIPL.
|
And:
Quote:
|
So you also admit that the Parker image is processed? This is not consistent with your use of it as representing the raw image in your thumb nails.
|
And:
Quote:
|
Unfortunately your “facts” are not very factual. You use the Parker image as the raw image, when it is highly processed.
|
Jon, you still don't understand which image is which.
So far I've uploaded four images: three animations and one side-by-side. In all four of these images, the first frame is from cydonia1.tif, which was _not_ created by Tim J. Parker.
The forum server automatically uses the first frame of each animation to create a "thumbnail," therefore all four thumbnails are from cydonia1.tif, which is _not_ Tim J. Parker's enhancement.
There isn't a single pixel, in any one of my images or their corresponding thumbnails, derived in any way from Tim J. Parker's enhancement.
If we want to have an intelligent discussion about this subject, we really need to have all participants understand which image is which!
Quote:
|
But we are not dealing with non human processes are we? We are dealing with image processing that is done by people. When you write “selectively eliminated" in this context then there is the clear meaning that this was done deliberately.
|
My use of the phrase "selectively suppressed" was intended to make no statement about deliberate intent. As I wrote in my first message in this thread, I claim no knowledge about whether the creation and selection of the deceptive image was deliberate, or accidental.
Which word or phrase would you prefer me to use, instead of "selectively?"
Quote:
|
What do you mean when you say “Whether they knew it or not, they used the "catbox convolution" that I described in my first two articles in this thread.” Are you accusing them of not understanding what they are doing?
|
When you use computer software, are you always aware of the exact algorithms being used?
The person who used the software was probably not the same person who wrote the software.
Quote:
|
(2) A long, narrow high-pass filter is applied in a vertical orientation to help reduce some of the instrument signature. This signature is seen as the streaking that is noticeable in the original data.
|
Quote:
|
Since this bears not relation to what you say they did: a very simple 1x31 convolution, are you accusing MIPL of lying?
|
Step #2 above is the one that "bears relation." The person who wrote that text described the "very simple 1x31 convolution" as a "long, narrow high-pass filter." The convolution does, indeed, eliminate the vertical streaks, just as stated in #2. But it has several other effects which are not stated in #2. As I wrote in my first message in this thread, the convolution also "destroys real 3D shading cues, and creates false shading cues, and gives the surrounding flat land a 'grainy' texture, and creates 'false shadows' above and below a small bright feature near the east edge of the image."
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
This is because all three (MIPL and Parker and MSSS) normalized the contrast. You need to do the same.
|
So you admit the MIPL normalised contrast?
|
Of course. It's nearly impossible for human eyes to see anything in the raw images, if you don't normalize the contrast.
Quote:
|
This is quite contrary to what you claim they have done.
|
You've misunderstood what I've claimed. Large-scale brightness variations were selectively suppressed, and then, after this selective suppression was performed, the contrast was normalized.
Quote:
|
And I am supposed to believe this do this, based on your say so?
|
No, I don't expect you to accept my "say so." I expect you to look at the images that I've attached, and see the effects with your own eyes. Then, if you suspect that I might have faked the images, I expect you to download cydonia1.tif and process it yourself, using the convolution that I described, so that you can see the effects with your own eyes, without any need to trust my "say so."
But, of course, you first need to understand which image is which!
Quote:
|
Why would they do this anyway?
|
I don't know. Perhaps it was just an accident.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
Thank you for your advice. I stand by my use of the word "clueless" in reference to that particular image.
|
So MSS, Parker and MIPL are all clueless as well as dishonest liars?
|
No, I was referring only to the MIPL image.
Quote:
|
All three images processed images were released on the same day, two (MIPL and Parker) in the same press release.
|
I thought that the original press release was issued _before_ 5:30 PM, when Tim J. Parker's image was posted. Can you provide a link that says that there was no press release before 5:30 PM?
Quote:
|
It is not JPL’s fault that the media used the image you don’t like. Take it up with them.
|
When you learn that you've released bogus data, you should issue an apology and retraction. It doesn't matter if you also released some correct data, on the same day, or even in the same press release. You still need to retract the bogus data.