ArchAngel's Mars Issues Thread

[ArchAngel]

Sorry to bother you again. I would not have unless I had something new for you.

We all know that there are many images of the sundial, and it is used to calibrate the camera.

But why does NASA have to do a high quality cut-n-paste job and FAKE images that are used to "prove" the color of the surface on their press page?







That is not where the edge of the rover is.







They even cut around the upright on the sundial. Very convincing work.

Real pros....

Why are these fake images on the press page if it is not NASA's intent to deceive?

[George]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

"...the Mars rover cameras aren't ordinary digital cameras...All of the rover cameras are, in effect, 1-megapixel monochrome digital cameras. The colors in the pancam images come from a sophisticated set of color filter wheels, and the sweeping panoramas are mosaics of many individual images..."

Thanks. Nice link. However it has been changed to.... here

I am not knowledgeable in CCD's but assumed the similarity based on this statement...

Originally Posted by JPL article

It works a lot like your digital camera, which registers pixels in a similar way,” he relates. “It just takes a little longer to create the final picture since we have to wait for the information to reach us from Mars.

In going to the JPL site for the above quote, I noticed a new picture....



Note the true looking flag colors. Surprisngly pink ground, however. Sun appears to be mostly overhead.

[BTW....IT'S FROM SPIRIT! =D> ]

[TinFoilHat]

There's no cut-and-paste going on.

If you take a look at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpe...180_modest.jpg you'll see that the sundial is in fact on the edge of the panel.

Your bottom two pictures appear to have been taken before the rover crawled off the lander. That's the lander hardware behind it in those two pictures, not part of the lander itself.

[KHarvey16]

That fact was pointed out in both of his GLP threads. He hasn't responded to either of them yet. Wonder why?

[ArchAngel]

I see that now. Sorry..

But after looking through all of the raw images I do not see what one this comes from. Notice the angle of the sun in it.

Is NASA hiding them?

[KHarvey16]

I have to do this on two thread now? Yikes .

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2367L7M1.HTML

May be a different angle but it's the exact same spot.

*Edit*

Just wondering...why do you feel they owe us EVERY image they get anyway?

[ArchAngel]

That image is from Spirit sol 16, and is L7.

Where are the other images they used to make color, or can NASA now make color images from just the L7?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...irit_p016.html

[ArchAngel]

Just wondering...why do you feel they owe us EVERY image they get anyway?

Why not the ones they use to make "color images" on their press page?

The source images should be made clear.

[ArchAngel]

on this image is says (Gusev, Sol2)



But the Sol2 pics are from when it was still on the pad:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...irit_p002.html

[dummy]

I don't know about JPL, but if it was me being jumped on over images I released, I sure wouldn't be keen to release raw images for the colour pictures I publish. I mean, really, what is the point? To prove to sceptics that its the real colour? Most of them that I've seen on these forums and other sites simply ignore the expanations given about true-colour and use the raw images as 'proof' that NASA is lying.

I mean, earlier you were convinced they copy-pasted images to fake-explain 'why the colours look odd!'. Was it because they copy-pasted said images? No. It was because you have some obsession with proving a silly conspiracy, and you saw an 'inconsistancy' that you couldn't be bothered to research into. If you'd looked the raw images you would have seen pictures with the dial near rocks.

NASA probably aren't going to release every single raw image they get on the website right now. For a start there are images that arrive with chunks missing, or need extra processing. There's also probably a huge amount of images, and I would hazard a guess that these images aren't in JPEG format. So they're taking extra time to convert a large amount of raw pictures for everyone to see. They'll release everything later on multiple CDs like they did with Voyager/Galileo/Viking/Pathfinder/etc.

Also regarding the last post, (Gusev, Sol 2) looks to be part of the line-graph rather than the image. The image has just been put there to pretty it up.

[ArchAngel]

This is the first part of the associated press release for this image:

These are the first images sent back from the panoramic camera on the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit since the rover experienced communications problems on the 18th sol, or martian day, of its mission. They were acquired at Gusev Crater, Mars, on Sol 26 (Jan. 29, 2004), showing that the camera's health remained excellent during Spirit's recovery. Two of Spirit's potential target rocks, which are near the rock called Adirondack, can be seen on the lower left and right. The rock on the left has been named "Cake," and the white rock on the right has been named "Blanco."

Where is Sol 26 for the panoramic camera?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit.html

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...portunity.html

[dummy]

They're a space agency, not interplanetary in-the-field journalists. The images will probably either be converted and posted when they have time, or just archived and released later.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by dummy

I mean, really, what is the point?

I agree, if the point is that NASA is "faking" the pictures somehow...well, ArchAngel, you're gonna have to come up with a better argument than you have so far.

[ArchAngel]

"The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching"...Isaac Asimov

NASA says:

Actual data from Mars Exploration Rover Spirit´s panoramic camera is mapped on top of these lines as dots. The plot demonstrates that the observed colors of Mars match the colors of the chips, and thus approximate the red planet´s true colors. This finding is further corroborated by the picture taken on Mars of the calibration target, which shows the colored chips as they would appear on Earth.

But it cannot be. The data is not there to create this image.

Or this one either:



Nasa says:

These are the first images sent back from the panoramic camera on the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit since the rover experienced communications problems on the 18th sol, or martian day, of its mission. They were acquired at Gusev Crater, Mars, on Sol 26 (Jan. 29, 2004), showing that the camera´s health remained excellent during Spirit´s recovery.

There is no Sol 26, and there is no match with any of the published images.

These images from the press page could not have come from any images published for Spirt.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit.html

Sol 33: No image of sundial

Sol 30: No image of sundial

Sol 29: No image of sundial

Sol 16: Only two images that are not correct filters for color, and shadow is in wrong position.

Sol 15: No image of sundial

Sol 14: Lander in frame above sundial, not the ground

Sol 13: No image of sundial

Sol 12: No image of sundial

Sol 11: No image of sundial

Sol 10: No image of sundial

Sol 9: No image of sundial

Sol 8: No image of sundial

Sol 7: No image of sundial

Sol 6: First two images from R2 and R7 filters cannot create color, rocks are different. All other sundial images shadow is too long.

Sol 5: Lander in image above sundial. Rover on pad.

Sol 4: Rover on pad

Sol 3: Rover on pad

Sol 2: Rover on pad

Sol 1: No image of sundial




NASA has failed to provide the raw data for both of the press page images that they are using to prove the color of Mars.

[dummy]

And like someone said before, since when are they obligated to post every single picture they receive? They're busy people on a tight schedule. which is now slightly behind (relative to where it should be) because of problems.

They're not going to waste time sitting there, convert every raw image they recieve to JPEG, and then post it, just to make a few conspiracist nuts happy. They'll either get around to posting something, or just archive it and release it later.

This topic will probably go round and round and round in circles. Conspiracy theorists bring up a point, it gets explained, explanation gets ignored and a different point is bought up, it gets explained, and so on. Do you have any hard

[ArchAngel]

They're not going to sit there, convert every raw image they recieve to JPEG, and then post it, just to make a few conspiracist nuts happy. They'll either get around to posting something, or just archive it and release it later.

Why not just for the ones they are using to prove the color on their press page?

Converting them to Jpeg is simple!

They had to have the data to create the images anyway.

It has been a week since they supposedly received the images, and others are quickly posted.

Many later less interesting shots have been posted since.

That they did not include the usual disclaimer about including the near-infared filter I must assume they are implying it is from L4 L5 L6.

Why not post them?

[dummy]

Because like its been mentioned over and over now. You CANNOT just merge L4/L5/L6 filters and magically get a 'true colour' image, so what would be the point in releasing them as proof?

Converting a single image to jpeg is simple, taking the time out to select, resize, convert multiple jpegs and then write HTML's for each one is just wasting their time when they could be doing actual research. I know what I'd rather have my scientists doing.

[ArchAngel]

Because like its been mentioned over and over now. You CANNOT just merge L4/L5/L6 filters and magically get a 'true colour' image, so what would be the point in releasing them as proof?

Then what did they use to create this image?

Is this not implying proof of the color?




Was it created from L4 L5 L6 raw data.

The raw data for it, or any other filters is not on NASA's site.

[dummy]

Like I said, you can't just merge them. They have to be properly processed. To do this you need to know the exact conditions in which the pictures were taken. JPL know these conditions, the public don't. Therefore who's pictures do you think will be more reliable?

In fact, I'm bored so I'm going to show you something.

SOL 009
Take the 3 raw images:
2P129026002EFF0327P2382L4M1.JPG
2P129026033EFF0327P2382L5M1.JPG
2P129026064EFF0327P2382L6M1.JPG
and build your 'true colour' image, you get this:
http://games.paradum.com/trueballs_01.jpg

Now on the same SOL, take these 3:
2P129026656EFF0327P2382L4M1.JPG
2P129026712EFF0327P2382L5M1.JPG
2P129026770EFF0327P2382L6M1.JPG
and build another 'true colour' image
http://games.paradum.com/trueballs_02.jpg

Now according to your logic. L4/L5/L6 will make perfect true colour images. But uh, see now we have this problem. One of those pictures has pink soil, whilst one has a browny orange soil...

[I edited this post because I originally stated the second image was orange, which it is on this machine. I checked it out on my other and it was light brown, showing yet another factor these 'true-colour' images can't take into account, your monitor's contrast/brightness]

[ArchAngel]

I understand it is not so simple to create the color images, but what filters should you start with to get the closest you can to color if not L4 L5 L6.

The data for those images is on NASA's site. The ones for the images in my post are not.

[dummy]

I'm sure JPL don't release every image they have. The site isn't really a scientific data dump, more of a 'here's some interesting pics to keep you occupied' thing. I'm not too sure exactly how they go about building up their colour images, but I'd bet it's not so much a question of what filters you use, but how much of each you use for the final picture.

With most of the raw images, if you're really desperate to see colour pictures, you can create similar coloured images to theirs by combining L4/L5/L6 (or sometimes L4/L5/L7 or L2/L5/L6, though that can look odd on some pictures) and simply reduce the brightness or contrast of the blue and green channels (using your imagination and common sense on how much to reduce them).

But obviously without access to image conditions or other filter images, you won't know how exactly much to reduce them, and you're not going to see 100% accurate colour images. Still, they're enough to give you an idea.

[SarahMc]

As far as I'm aware, there's no camera, be it film or CCD/CMOS, that will provide a "true colour" image. No two filters are alike, and no filter set will provide you with an exact representation of what the human eye and brain will "see". Close, maybe.

For instance, I can take an image with three different films with my Nikon, and I get three different colour representations under the same settings and lighting. I have three webcams that provide drasticly different colour rendition when used under the same light. The same goes for my two digital cameras, both have different colour under the same conditions, and none of the above is what I "see".

I've used CCD's with different filter sets from different manufacturers, and they all create colour data that's obviously different due to differing bandpass peaks and crossovers, as well as transmission efficiency.

Add in the fact that every monitor and video card provide an even wider margin of error than the filters, and you have a never ending discussion of what's "true colour". This same topic has been a discussion in amateur astronomy for decades.

Is that really the colour of that nebula? "Well, it's close". The arguments for and against certain filter sets for LRGB/CMY imaging still rage. The old school still looks for films with a decent reciprocity and color sensitivity - and what about hypering? How long an exposure was the red channel, the green? Is the CCD blue sensitive? Is it back illuminated? The variety of combinations is endless.

There's no such thing as true colour, IMO, as far as imaging goes. What you see with your eyes in real time is the best you're going to get - and even that's no guarantee that your next door neighbor won't see it differently. Images are exactly what they're supposed to be - a best approximation or representation. Some of them are close, some are way off.

In this case I agree with others. Be happy that we're even getting images from Mars, much less the science being done there and the experience being garnered. I fail to see the point of discussing "true colour" when there's no such thing. Close, yes. True? Absolutely not.

Rant over for the night. That's what happens when the clouds have been overhead for three days straight. You see, I'm happy when I get one good image back on three rolls of film that took all night to expose while fighting mosquitos, skunks or 5º weather. When I see an image from the surface of Mars, no matter if colour or B&W, I'm just as happy.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by SarahMc

There's no such thing as true colour, IMO, as far as imaging goes. What you see with your eyes in real time is the best you're going to get - and even that's no guarantee that your next door neighbor won't see it differently.

Exactly! Perception of color can be very subjective. The Astronauts who walked on the Moon had the same "problem". If you were to ask each of the 12 what the color of the Moon was...you would get 12 different answers.

Which brings us full circle in this discussion. ArchAngel, What exactly are you trying to say? The colors "aren't right", so what! Cut to the "chase", and tell us what you are thinking. Lets have no more of "this image isn't right" or "that image isn't right". You've "reached" some kind of conclusion...just tell us what it is!

And why did you "quote" my sig? [-X It certainly doesn't help your argument.

[dummy]

I don't think he has anything to say other than what most conspiracy theorists say.

'NASA are stupid liars! I have discovered a conspiracy!'

[majic]

There is really nothing new that ArchAngel posts that hasnt been posted (And shown to be erroneous) by others like him before. Yet we still take the time and descency to explain it all over again ...you gotta love the BA forum

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by SarahMc

As far as I'm aware, there's no camera, be it film or CCD/CMOS, that will provide a "true colour" image. No two filters are alike, and no filter set will provide you with an exact representation of what the human eye and brain will "see". Close, maybe.

For instance, I can take an image with three different films with my Nikon, and I get three different colour representations under the same settings and lighting. I have three webcams that provide drasticly different colour rendition when used under the same light. The same goes for my two digital cameras, both have different colour under the same conditions, and none of the above is what I "see".

I've used CCD's with different filter sets from different manufacturers, and they all create colour data that's obviously different due to differing bandpass peaks and crossovers, as well as transmission efficiency.

Add in the fact that every monitor and video card provide an even wider margin of error than the filters, and you have a never ending discussion of what's "true colour". This same topic has been a discussion in amateur astronomy for decades.

Is that really the colour of that nebula? "Well, it's close". The arguments for and against certain filter sets for LRGB/CMY imaging still rage. The old school still looks for films with a decent reciprocity and color sensitivity - and what about hypering? How long an exposure was the red channel, the green? Is the CCD blue sensitive? Is it back illuminated? The variety of combinations is endless.

There's no such thing as true colour, IMO, as far as imaging goes. What you see with your eyes in real time is the best you're going to get - and even that's no guarantee that your next door neighbor won't see it differently. Images are exactly what they're supposed to be - a best approximation or representation. Some of them are close, some are way off.

In this case I agree with others. Be happy that we're even getting images from Mars, much less the science being done there and the experience being garnered. I fail to see the point of discussing "true colour" when there's no such thing. Close, yes. True? Absolutely not.

Rant over for the night. That's what happens when the clouds have been overhead for three days straight. You see, I'm happy when I get one good image back on three rolls of film that took all night to expose while fighting mosquitos, skunks or 5º weather. When I see an image from the surface of Mars, no matter if colour or B&W, I'm just as happy.

Dammit, Sarah, you stole my thunder, so to speak.

Having done photography/astrophotography for over forty years, I can say Sarah is completely correct. What you see ain't necessarily gonna be what you get!

To draw an Earth-Mars comparison, many of my photographs have been of mountain expeditions. As you would expect, a lot of them start in the morning and end in the evening.

What's remarkable is comparing pictures of the mountain we were attacking in the morning, versus how it appeared in the late afternoon. If we were approaching it from the east, the area below treeline would be a riot of greens, the area above would be light gray and white in the snowy areas. But, in the afternoon, with the sun setting behind the range, the same mountain would appear dark, dusky, and black, with no color showing anywhere the early morning greens, grays, and whites had been.

This is attributable to the film's capacity for color discernment falling off as the light grows dim. At certain levels things change from color to gray. CCDs are perhaps better than film in some ways, but they demonstrate the same drop-off re color when the stage becomes dark.

We need to remember that when looking at these Mars pictures.

PS: Sarah, I know that feeling when getting that "one good image"!
Ahh!

=D>

[ArchAngel]

The results are that hundreds of millions of people believe that the "color" images they have seen are "true color" or very close, but that is not true. The average person does not get this info.

They are behaving like lawyers, not scientists.

When it was pointed out to them that the L2 is not the correct filter to use for the red channel in color images they added a brief disclaimer rather than using the proper L4 filter.

They have failed to provide the raw data for both of the images they are using to 'prove' the color of the surface.

These images are now suspect. I can see no reason to delay showing the raw data. It should have been posted before the color images. After having a week to edit this data how can we now know it is not hoaxed?

They could have posted it like they did for all the other images.

Being incomplete is not an answer because they post many incomplete images, and update them llater if, and when the rest of the data arrives.

If you don't care for my conspiracy then don't read it because I did not write it for you, but rather for the ones who do.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by dummy

I'm sure JPL don't release every image they have. The site isn't really a scientific data dump, more of a 'here's some interesting pics to keep you occupied' thing. I'm not too sure exactly how they go about building up their colour images, but I'd bet it's not so much a question of what filters you use, but how much of each you use for the final picture.

This page specifically states "All Raw Images" at the top. However, I agree with ArchAngel on this: There are images being released as part of the press releases that have no counterpart (at least not immediately) in the raw image area. For those of us inclined to trust NASA, it's no big deal. For the conspiratorial, it's all but a smoking gun.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

This page specifically states "All Raw Images" at the top. However, I agree with ArchAngel on this: There are images being released as part of the press releases that have no counterpart (at least not immediately) in the raw image area. For those of us inclined to trust NASA, it's no big deal. For the conspiratorial, it's all but a smoking gun.

For those of us who are used to intepreting unprocessed visual data, there's been no problem, other than slow data flow.

For the others, well, I suggest they get some kind of help bringing them back to reality.

[dummy]

This page specifically states "All Raw Images" at the top.

The title says 'All raw images' because that is exactly what that page contains, all the raw images that have been released on the site. The sentence is so short it can have any number of meanings. To me it goes along with their 'All Press Images' title. The page doesn't contain all press images (as I've seen more), simply all press images on the site.

The results are that hundreds of millions of people believe that the "color" images they have seen are "true color" or very close, but that is not true. The average person does not get this info.

That's not true. The images JPL present are as close as they'll ever be. This has been stated many, many, many times in disclaimers or descriptions posted along with the images. There are websites and forums that have dedicated their time to explain just why your average joe can't just merge the images and get accurate pictures, and why JPL know what they're doing.

They are behaving like lawyers, not scientists.

When it was pointed out to them that the L2 is not the correct filter to use for the red channel in color images they added a brief disclaimer rather than using the proper L4 filter.

So basically, because a few crazy conspiracists have some kind of beef with JPL, they're supposed to scrap all the colour images they've created, and waste time recreating them from scratch? Creating those colour images isn't as simple as merging channels. It's not some 10 second process that they'd want to redo all over again simply because some people believe some silly story. They don't have some pre-calibrated piece of software that eats raw images and instantly spits out colour images. They have to manually build each one differently, depending on light sources, image content, time of day, etc.

They post disclaimers that their images may not be 100% accurate. They even created a two part article explaining the problems with generating true-colour images. You're lucky they wasted their time doing that much. Also as stated (again) many times before, it's not a matter of simply what filters are right and wrong. It is different for every image.

These images are now suspect. I can see no reason to delay showing the raw data. It should have been posted before the color images. After having a week to edit this data how can we now know it is not hoaxed?

How are they suspect? How can you know it is hoaxed? Lets see. You must have posted near 10 damn theories on why JPL is hoaxing these colours now, and each one has been carefully explained to you, yet you continue to bring up new 'proof' and theories. We take the time to consider your theories and show you exactly why they don't add up, yet you don't seem to take the time to consider our answers.

Being incomplete is not an answer because they post many incomplete images, and update them llater if, and when the rest of the data arrives.

Well damn, I didn't realise scientists have so much free time that they can spend it creating thousands of raw images just so you can use them to prove mars is blue/green/pink/yellow/whatever. Check out Spirit Sol 001. There are still images there with big-black-nodata boxes. Does that mean the data doesn't exist? No, it means they just haven't had time to go through every image and update it. Like I said before. The raw images will be released in full later on, just like the viking images were, just like the pathfinder images were. For now these are just to fill their site with bits of new data.

If you don't care for my conspiracy then don't read it because I did not write it for you, but rather for the ones who do.

You came to a forum that you know would receive skeptical feedback and posted something that we've scientifically and logically explained over and over again.