The first image below is from the European Space Agency, Hale Crater on Mars. You can find it at: www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html Select Multimedia Gallery, Search Keyword "Hale", select second from left, high resolution, and download it.

In Photoshop process as follows: Contrast/Brightness +30, +30. Crop in bottom central mountains to the edge of frame. Zoom to 100%. Image, Adjustments, Levels, Set RGB input levels 75, 0.59, 255. Set output levels 22,255. Filter, Sharpen, UnSharp Mask settings Amount 88%, Radius 24.6, Threshold 20. Save and view at 200%.

What do I see on Mars? I see shapes and geometric figures not possible with natural geological formations. I see intelligent design. Or,

I see an elaborate hoax, in which case ESA has been hoaxed also.

What do you see?

"Can you hear me Major Tom?"

J.P.

Attached Images

	Hale Crater from ESA Official Site for Web.jpg (117.6 KB, 111 views)
	Hale Crater Closer Up For Web.jpg (104.8 KB, 128 views)

I think you are seeing things.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Looks like pretty ordinary geology to me.

Intelligent Design flunks again.

Bob

Do you mean the compression artifacts?

Yes, they were intelligently designed, by PhotoShop.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

Good one!

Yep, nothing there but geology and some JPEG artifacts. Sorry to burst your bubble J.P.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I see Bizarre Image Analysis.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Well, you are probably right about the compression artifacts. So I did some study on them this afternoon. While they mention boxes and squares and other artifacts, I saw nothing about small circles, long straight lines, irregular rectangular pieces, etc. I also ran the image through a different processing program, Photo See, and got the exact same patterns, so it is not just Photoshop creating the patterns, if that is what you mean. But what do I know? Has somebody else tried on their computer to duplicate what I did? And, I've gone through other ESA images at about the same resolution, and find no evidence of image compression there.

J.P.

Okay, I did. I followed your instructions exactly.

My artifacts are nothing like yours.

Attached Images

CompressionArtifacts.jpg (128.1 KB, 77 views)

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

Doodler's Law of Photo Analysis.

Object's in Photoshop are less real than they appear.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Lance, your artifacts seem a little bit brighter/lighter...yep, nothing like J.P.'s (?)



This entire thread is beginning to feel a bit surreal if you ask me. Perhaps I'd best not dilly dali any further?

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I see Pink Bunnies wearing underwear on their head...No, Seriously.
...
...
...
Do you see how stupid that is? Because when you come to an Astronomy forum and say something like that, thats about what we see, just worded a bit differently.

__________________

I think we need to apply some Extra Sense to interpret these artifacts as proof of life on Mars. What do you think N C?

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

Using "unsharp mask" does not add information to your images. It reduces it. The more you manipulate the image, the less intrinsic "truth" it contains.

If I knew the scale of the image I would say it looks like the martains are growing mixed fields of wheat and barley.

People keep coming up with these unique images to "prove" life is on mars. I want to see a population of repeated shapes that indicate a population of lifeforms. Anything else is just another unique rock that looks like a bunny, or something.

JPEG artifacts are not alive.

__________________
This is my Martian Passport photo!

Absolutely.

Welcome to the digital age. Am I the only one who can hear the difference between real music and digitally-remastered sound. Pictures are even more of a problem for me. That's why I'm sticking to my Pentax SLR with Kodak film and my crumby old cassette recorder that only plays one way. Yes space pictures from Hubble are gorgeous. Yes a lot of data can be gained by CCD. But at least I hope I can discern the diff btween what I can sense with my eyes and ears and what is real. Can you?

JPEG artifacts

__________________
My Music, 56k stream available -Check it out!

OK, here's another question for those who know much more about compression artifacts and unsharp masking than I do. (I'm not being smart *** here, I really am a babe in the woods when it comes to photo processing). My question is, if there are compression artifacts on a JPG image that has been pushed too far, why on this particular one are they only evident in the lower area, and not in the rest of the image? Like on the mountains. And, if you want, forget the unsharp mask and follow my processing to that point. You will still see the patterns, and as I said before, they appear much more diverse compared to the compression artifacts that I have seen as examples, which appear to be fuzzy squares on the edges of photos. The original image from ESA is over 1.2 Megs, and gives a resolution of 40 meters per pixel resulting, I have roughly figured, in about 4.8 miles per inch of image. I don't find that to be an excessive amount of compression. I would love to have access to the bitmap image or tif image if that was possible. I was ready to accept the fact that they were compression artifacts, until I went back and ran the whole sequence again, and keep coming up with shapes that in my opinion, exceed what is usually thought of as compression artifacts. How about someone sending me an example of a compression artifact that mimics what I have produced? Here's my E address in case you would like to minerjp@comcast.net

Sincerely,

JP

See previous post, "Can you hear me Major Tom."

The European Space Agencys Mars Express orbiter is sending back fantastic images of Mars. Take a look at www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html

Onboard the orbiter is a camera called the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) It is imaging the entire planet in full color 3D at a resolution of 10 meters average and up to 2 meters in selected areas.

I selected three compatable images to compare from the Mars Express

1. Hale Crater, 17.1 MB bitmap 40 meters per pixel, 72 pixels per inch
2. Olympus Mons, 4.09 MB bitmap 43 meters per pixel, 72 pixels per inch
3. Valles Marineris Canyon 49.7 mb bitmap 43 meters per pixel 72 pixels per inch.

On each, I increased contrast and brightness in Photoshop +30, +30
On each, I adjusted levels for best contrast, moving the black point slider to the shoulder of the histogram.
On each, I then enlarged to 200%.

The first three enlargements are at 200% iTe fourth image was enlarged to 500%. Note there is compression artifacts and pixelation in all three at 200% and quite noticable in the 500%. However, compare the 200% enlargement of Hale Crater with the other two. Olympic Mons and Valles Marineris are at the same resolution of around 40 meters per pixel, and all are at 72 pixels per inch.

I find the Hale Crater image most interesting and suggestive. I have contacted Professor Dr Gerhard Neukum, the lead man in the HRSC program for ESA and asked him to comment.

The order of images is 1. 200% Olympus Mons, 2. 200% Valles Marineris, 3. 200% Hale Crater, 4. 500% Olympus Mons.

J. P. Morgan

Attached Images

	Olympus Mons 200% Enlarged.JPG (36.9 KB, 44 views)
	Valles Marineris Canyon 200%.BMP (78.3 KB, 34 views)
	Hale Crater Enlarged 200%.JPG (41.9 KB, 56 views)
	Olympus Mons 500% with compression.JPG (17.3 KB, 220 views)

If I were interested in reading that post again, I would. I don't need another thread to remind me. I admit that this one is slightly different, but that could have been a bump with new info.

Such pixilation is fascinating, let us know what you hear back

One of the observations on my previous post was that what was presented was a bad case of compression artifacts. What is new on this thread is that I have attempted to answer that observation by comparing three different images taken by the same camera at the same resolution, and also showing what a compression artifact looks like when one enlarges to 500%.

JP

Why? Do you think he has nothing better to do than to look at over-pixelated images? I'm sure he has plenty of his own where he's been heard cussing Photoshop and hit the View-Zoomout-2:1 button again.

Just look at the pretty pictures, make a couple of your own out of em, and leave the serious scientists alone. You could send them a coupon for a free pizza, THAT they'd probably enjoy.

Thank you for your most insightful comments. Do you happen to know a good pizza outlet in Berlin?

JP

If Dr Neukum, a very serious scientist indeed, takes the time to answer my inane questions, I will be sure to let you know. I also find the pixilation fascinating since it seems not to be present in the mountainous areas, or outside the rim of the canyon.

JP

Perhaps I'm just not seeing what you're talking about here...."interesting and suggestive" of what? Upon exactly *what* have you asked Dr. Neukum to comment? Could you please be a bit more specific about what we're supposed to be seeing here, thanks.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I asked Dr Neukum to comment on the weird geometric shapes in his Hale Crater image when it is only enlarged to twice that of the original. It usually takes a lot more enlargement to bring on the pixilation and compression artifacts. I have compared it to other images from the Mars Express taken at the same resolution, and those other images do not exhibit the same distortions that the Hale image does. I would like to know why. I see weird patterns, is what I see, having backed off my "intelligent design" mis-statement.

JP

I'll bite. Do you think these are Martian corn fields ? Maybe an interplanetary spaceport ? Could even be the site of Disney's newest theme-park, what do you think ?

Is that what you see? You have a great imagination. I'm surprised that no one has taken the time to provide a reasoned explanation of the weird geometric shapes. I guess I am in the wrong forum.

JP

I'm thinking, and indeed thought in the other thread about the same thing, that this image is already pixelated by the data transmission so when you blow it up, you get larger versions of the pixels.
And again, you cannot blow up digital images like you can emulsion images. Once they are pixelated you can't get the data back. Larger images of pixels only gives you larger pixels. Infact if you blow up that last .bmp that you posted to 2x, you can see the edge of the crater gets pixelated badly. Those images are pretty useless as they seem to already be enlarged as big as possible. Not that I'm an expert or anything.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

But people have given you an explanation of the weird geometric shapes, they are compression artifacts. In fact, this has been the consistent response in both threads now. If you want a detailed, technical explanation then perhaps you need to go to a photography website?

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!