I am definitely disgusted by NASA public images policy:

zoom

I didn't do anything to the original images (1P137165596ESF2019P2357L7M1.JPG and surounding, from exploratorium),I just put them into a ping-pong sequence.

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

Well, call me crazy, but I just don't see how this proves a Mars hoax by NASA. Pictures 1P137165130ESF2019P2357L4M1.JPG and 1P137165242ESF2019P2357L5M1.JPG indeed appear to be taken from the same location at different times, and the dunetops appear to have shifted somewhat. Isn't that what dunes do? Wind blows, and sand gets moved around. Isn't that exactly what we should expect to see? Doesn't it prove that the scenery isn't just a painting?

Aporetic

Please to explain what you are seeing here, and why you think it's evidence of a NASA hoax?

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

There's definitely something odd about this image, like some of the top part got cut off somehow or else overexposed. Compare it with this image, which was taken with the other pancam camera at exactly the same time.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Far as I can tell, it looks as it the center of the picture didn't get processed right in later images. It looks as if the data stream just kept cropping the center portion in such as way that it looks odd like this.
Remember, never attribute to malice what you can attribute to mistake.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Is it not just overexposed, so that places the sun hits are saturating their CCD buckets, and getting depicted as 100-percent white?

The shadow on the pancam calibration target is pretty long both before and after that landscape was imaged, from 4:02 to 4:24 local time. Could the foreground have simply been in shadow, and when that majority of the image was properly exposed, then the smaller sunlit portions and bright sky were overexposed?

I guess I'd rather have that than the sliver of sunlit ground properly exposed and all the shadow-drenched foreground black.

__________________
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....

I have a feeling that the ground the rover is standing on is at an angle, so that the hill-like feature to the left is actually more horizontal... The rover does seem to be on the outer rim of the crater...this would put the two cameras at different heights, and make the differences harder to understand by just applying the horizontal separation of the cameras...

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

Besides, I really don't think NASA is going to conveniently place nearly identical doctored photos next to each other as a convenience to the conspiracy theorists.

And what is the conspiracy here again? That the rovers are actually in an Area 51 hanger or something?

My best guess is that we are seeing some kind of threshold cut-off effect inherent in the software. Certainly if you look closely at some of those photos near the top center where there is a bit of a bump, there are light areas that our brain fills in as earth but it is exactly the same colour as sky. So these can't be taken completely at face value, in any case. Also, the edges where the hill areas have mysteriously disappeared are jaggy suggesting something obviously un-natural has taken place.

RBG

I invite anyone with interest in this image series to check out J Maki et al. for their explaination of the autoexposure algorithms:
http://robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/people/...03JE002077.pdf

This is a great example of the delicate balance they're trying to obtain when picking how to frame an image...this image was, i'm betting, misframed. In short:

When they use the autoexposure function, the image waits until a critical % (pixel fraction) of ccd bins reach a specific pixel value (DN threshold) or higher. The problem in the above image, as opposed to other similar images, is the very low % of the image that has sky in it. If the pixel fraction were 25%, and the sky covers less than 10% of the image, then the 10% sky would max exposure long before the pixels of ground reach the autoexposure DN threshold. This leaves the image exposing long after the ccd bins for the sky portion have filled, and begin to bleed over in the nearby bins. Most other images of the horizon line have been taken at least ~20 % of the image given to the sky, so that the sky brightness is the trigger of the end of the exposure.

You can see in the earlier, L2 L3 L4 frames, there are bright (in that filter's color) features in the foreground. They would contribute to the pixel fraction, and help cut off the exposure before it goes too far. The later L5 L6 L7 frames (green-blue) do not have bright features in the foreground, so the entire pixel fraction has to come from the bright horizon (and those bins which are bled into).


Its also good evidence for the nature of the light coming off the ground and sky. The filters which have the most bleed represent those which are in the blue end of the spectrum, lending more credence to Mars' consistant redness. There isn't enough blue in the scene to cut off the exposure until long after the inherient brightness of the sky overwhelms the nearby bins.

or.. that the little rover is moving up the hill so you are seeing the same view from different angles.

Image - time
1P137165054ESF2019P2357L2M1.JPG - Sol 101 - Time 15:48:54
1P137165084ESF2019P2357L3M1.JPG - Sol 101 - Time 15:49:23
1P137165130ESF2019P2357L4M1.JPG - Sol 101 - Time 15:50:8
1P137165242ESF2019P2357L5M1.JPG - Sol 101 - Time 15:51:57
1P137165419ESF2019P2357L6M1.JPG - Sol 101 - Time 15:54:49
1P137165596ESF2019P2357L7M1.JPG - Sol 101 - Time 15:57:41

I already found other fake images by NASA, like this one:

(from here)

This is the corresponding images obtained by me using the raw images:


And this is taken from this site


A couple of details:

From RAW images:


From NASA:



What I don't understand is why NASA "doesn't like" natural martian sky!
Are there Green Men greeting Opportunity, in the Martian sky?
Is there some unhappy employee at NASA which would like to discredit NASA?
Did somebody at NASA let a coffe cup fall on the PC, so image data were corrupted, so he had to manually repaint the image?...
Was there a searchlight visible in those photos, as the picture was taken at Universal Studios?...

Guys, I really don't know what to think, but those images are clearly retouched, this is a fact. About the reason, I don't know, I'm not an international detective...

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

At least two of the photos we're looking at were taken at exactly the same time. I think slinted has the best explanation (involving auto-exposure).

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I don't get it. When the caption to the above picture clearly refers to it as "This enhanced false-color mosaic image from the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit panoramic camera", why do you call it a fake? Were you faked out by the enhanced colors?

__________________
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....

Of course the images are "retouched". It's what distinguishes "raw" from "processed" images.

What's your complaint, exactly? The raw images are there, alongside the interpretations made by the NASA scientists. If you don't like their interpretations of the data, you're free to come up with your own (as you have).

I don't see how your expertise in photointerpretation trumps theirs, though.

Well, that's a really poor example to use for what the true colors should be, when the caption there says: Do you claim the images you synthesized are true color? Why?

__________________
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....

No, the colors are another, long discussed problem; but they completely deleted the sky and changed it into a nice, very Martian flat-red sky! None of the raw images has flat sky (gray, or white, or black, or what), ther is always noise. It is magically disappeared in color version. Congratulations to the creator of the program NASA uses to enhance the images... =D>


Raw detail:


NASA detail:

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

This new "true-color" image is simply offending:

zoom

Do you like that nice, reddish Martian sky? :^o
And what about the reddish terrain? They just replaced the grayscale of RAW images with a nice, Martianish red-scale... unfortunately, doing so now even the rovers looks red!!! #-o Ooopss...
The soil, in Endurance, is NOT red, it's ,
brown, blue, and orange, and yellow....
In this image, we only have red. [-X Anyway, if you think we could never know the true colors of Mars, enjoy that nice red gradient for the Endurance sky! It looks like been painted by a kid.

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

Won't "lossy" compression algorithms introduce artifacts like this?

Whatever the source of the artifact in the processed images: what exactly is it that you are accusing NASA of?

Spot the difference between "noise" and "detail"...
Main goal in processing any photo is to make it as good as possible, whatever filters and adjustments it takes is irrelevant.

Why do you think you got the raw images handy for comparison?