Strange Objects in Martian Rocks - Rover

[sunspot]

Hey everyone, take a look at my Tumblr post about some VERY interesting images just down from the Curiosity rover on Mars.

First, here is the original image on the NASA Mars rover website

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00551/mcam/0551MR2233051000E1_DXXX.jpg

And my Tumble post about it:

http://eosterwine.tumblr.com/post/78111326687/recent-image-from-the-curiosity-rover-clearly

I've been trying to get people to look at it, but so far it's been complete silence.

What do you all think????

[seeder]

Ah I see, ammonites on Mars, now, is that what youre implying?

[Dumpnuts]

OH! MY! GOODNESS! Someone has actually found some solid proof....

Of the existence of rocks on Mars. Case busted wide open.

[freetoroam]

^ I LURRRRRVE THIS.

Anyway, where were we? ah yes, strange rocks on Mars..................................

[DONTEATUS]

Regardless its Looking a lot better for our little trooper on Mars, We see production,and results now, I bet before its to the end of its life we will have proof of Life did at one time start on Mars IMO.

[freetoroam]

Regardless its Looking a lot better for our little trooper on Mars, We see production,and results now, I bet before its to the end of its life we will have proof of Life did at one time start on Mars IMO.

I think you could be right, there are a few humans who I reckon originated from that strange rock.

[sunspot]

I see posting this here was a waste of time.

[seeder]

I see posting this here was a waste of time.

hmm in what respect exactly, if I may ask?

[freetoroam]

I see posting this here was a waste of time.

I do not understand, at least we were not silent:

I've been trying to get people to look at it, but so far it's been complete silence.

What do you all think????

[Astra.]

Pretty cool pictures.... I think it's terrific that we now get to see Mars rocks and the red planets terrain. This is just the tip of the ice- berg in regards to what further technology will bring to us in the future. Thanks for sharing

[novabnt]

It's not just a boulder! It's a rock!

[spacelizard667]

If they find any other life there like green scum growing on the Martian rocks, I am going to lick that up like lunch....mmmm, me hungry !

[ChrLzs]

I see posting this here was a waste of time.

??? After just 3 hours and you complain because you aren't getting the results you would have liked? Could you explain what you were hoping for, exactly?

Just out of Curiosity (see what i did there?), given the thousands of images coming back from Mars, would you not expect there to be occasional things that look a little like other things every now and then? Me, I'm surprised we haven't had many faces yet...

Anyway, normally I'd make a bit of an effort to see if there were any higher resolution images to examine - that image simply isn't resolving the area enough to say that it is anything other than a chance pattern of light and texture...

I shall however just make one pertinent comment - that enlargement you supplied, OP, is VERY misleading. This is a quite heavily compressed JPEG file, and it contains very obvious jpeg blocking artefacts, namely the little 8x8 pixel blocks of data that show *false* detail. By using an INTERPOLATED enlarging routine, you have enhanced that FALSE detail. And because it is in little 8x8 blocks, it looks like a regular pattern in the 'thing'. If you enlarge it properly (using non-interpolated or linear or nearest neighbour)... you would see why you should NEVER enlarge jpeg's like you have.

Normally I would take the time to post examples and a fuller explanation, but seeing you are already complaining about the responses, I shall simply go and do something else where I am more appreciated and where logic and knowledge will be listened to... .. {and spits it}

[Rafterman]

Hey everyone, take a look at my Tumblr post about some VERY interesting images just down from the Curiosity rover on Mars.

First, here is the original image on the NASA Mars rover website

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00551/mcam/0551MR2233051000E1_DXXX.jpg

And my Tumble post about it:

http://eosterwine.tumblr.com/post/78111326687/recent-image-from-the-curiosity-rover-clearly

I've been trying to get people to look at it, but so far it's been complete silence.

What do you all think????

Would you be so kind as to share with us your academic credentials, educational background, peer reviewed papers you've written and successfully submitted, etc. and why you have determined that this is a Martian fossil.

[Thorvir]

The coloring of the image seems to intentionally point out that there is a fossil in that rock. I'd like to see it in person first, before jumping to any conclusions (I know, that's an impossibility). Seems that other protrusions in that rock could be considered a fossil as well, if only the coloring on them was slightly brighter.

So, until further study is done and actual evidence can be shown, it's just a strange and interesting rock. Nothing more.

I see posting this here was a waste of time.

Why? Because the responses weren't what you were wanting to read?

[scowl]

I've been trying to get people to look at it, but so far it's been complete silence.

What do you all think????

Turns out sunspot prefers complete silence to scientific discussion.

[sunspot]

OH! MY! GOODNESS! Someone has actually found some solid proof....

Of the existence of rocks on Mars. Case busted wide open.

^ I LURRRRRVE THIS.

Anyway, where were we? ah yes, strange rocks on Mars..................................

I think you could be right, there are a few humans who I reckon originated from that strange rock.

I think you could be right, there are a few humans who I reckon originated from that strange rock.

This is what I had issue with , snarky smart assed responses.

[sunspot]

JPG artefacts become a problem in low contrast areas of images, this feature is not in a low contrast area (such as in the dark shade under the rock) Something you can clearly see if you look at the original image I linked to.

[freetoroam]

This is what I had issue with , snarky smart assed responses.

Ok sorry, but what about the little Sherlock........you got to have liked him, isn't he just so cute?

[Dumpnuts]

This is what I had issue with , snarky smart assed responses.

Something about this topic needed to be smart.

[ChrLzs]

JPG artefacts become a problem in low contrast areas of images, this feature is not in a low contrast area (such as in the dark shade under the rock) Something you can clearly see if you look at the original image I linked to.

Absolute HOGWASH. The 'original' image when properly enlarged looks like the image below, NOT like the misleading and incorrectly enlarged mess you posted.

Jpeg artefacting can appear *anywhere* in an image - the amount you will see varies depending on the compression level - if it is highly compressed, and it most certainly is in this image, then the blocking effect can literally cover the image completely and there will be little difference in high or low contrast areas. BTW, Contrast refers to the DIFFERENCE in adjacent light and dark areas, not darkness. This cropped area of the image is in fact low to medium contrast. Sunspot would know that if he was truly competent and experienced with imaging.

To prove that absolutely, here is a correctly enlarged version of the area in question:

That is what sunspot should have posted. The fact they did not, is either ignorance or deliberate misinformation. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, as long as you accept correction and learn from it. If you instead refuse to acknowledge your errors, pretend to be an expert and mislead a forum, then don't expect to get away with it. In this case, sunspot needs to stop doing 5-minute googles and expecting to impress people with simplistic and largely incorrect proclamations about jpeg compression.

Anyone, even Sunspot can verify this by using a decent image editing program that allows nearest neighbour/linear enlargement. The 8x8 blocks are VERY obvious in the image above - is there anyone (other than Sunspot) who can't see them? If you need help I can draw faint lines on the image, but seriously.. just look for the strong horizontal & vertical lines appearing at 8-pixel increments. That is partly why the 'thing' appears to have a regular pattern. It is FALSE detail. And when you use interpolative enlargement, the enlarging algorithm assumes (incorrectly) that *any* detail it sees, including those false block edges and false gradients is genuine and should be enhanced. NO forensic investigator with a clue would ever post an image like Sunspot did, and everyone truly familiar with the technical aspects of both interpolation and jpeg compression knows why.

Given sunspot's other comments here and this new falsehood proclaimed as if from an expert, I find it hard to believe that this person is posting in good faith...

[dazdillinjah]

I like your post ..its cool when someone can chat openly in open forums (I realise your seeking open discussion) ..for me I like the pic, I dont know what it is ?? and (me) I also like the rock lower in the image shaped 'like a brick' even though I dont know what it really is (apart from a rock) I like people opening their minds and helping where ever possible. I know other members of our community here have the software to help better resolve the image. I just dont believe it helps without 'constructive' criticism, alot of keyboard heavies these days I guess. Look forward to anything else you spot that you think is interesting in the future ..Cheers

[Sir Smoke aLot]

its nautilus

[AZDZ]

So I have both pics open in different tabs in a side by side comparison and truth be told I don't really see what enlargement method matters. The object doesn't appear all that less mysterious in the img enlarged 'correctly' and if anything only seems reinforce details of the 'incorrect' which make it so strange to begin with.

Please help me understand how the correct enlargement somehow make it a less amazing object?

[ChrLzs]

AZDZ, I'll come back later to show the problem by way of lines and arrows, but look again at the image I posted. That is exactly what the original contains. Now, can you see a few rather strong vertical lines (they are spaced at 8-pixel intervals? You'll also see similar horizontal lines... Those show the boundaries of the 8x8 pixel blocks that I'm referring to. When JPEG is used to compress an image, it arbitrarily divides the image up into lots of little 8x8 blocks. Then, and here's the killer, it looks at the real original detail that was recorded, and finds a rough match with other areas of the image, and *replaces* the original detail in that 8x8 block with a 'similar' block from its limited collection. So what *was* original detail is GONE, thrown away forever. By using the method I used, you get to SEE those blocks and thereby, hopefully, realise that you cannot trust the detail, especially if it is aligned vertically or horizontally or at 8 pixel spacing, or appears as a 'gradient' or 'halo' or 'posterisation'. All of those 'details' are ones that are created by the JPEG compression process - yes, they very roughly align with the original detail, but only at an accuracy of about 4-12 pixels (which is awful), AND, as the compression level increases, the variation from the original rapidly increases to a point where even at normal (un-enlarged) viewing you can see false detail.

So, the image is already compromised, and then if you use interpolative enlargement - the sort used by the OP and that gives smoother edges and no obvious pixellation, it is adding MORE false detail.. and that extra false detail is derived from what was already false detail.. Do you see the problem - instead of a single problem compromising the image, you now have two, compounding the error. That's really bad 'investigation'.

I'll do some images to show the false detail more clearly, but if you look again at those vertical/horizontal blocks, you will see that the jpeg (false) detail is definitely affecting the perception of the structure and giving it some 'regular'-looking patterning that is almost certainly *not* there. EG, note the rectangular block of darker pixels at lower right - that is very obviously a jpeg block problem and almost certainly does not correspond accurately to anything real.. There is LOTS of that false detail in the image.

Gotta run, work awaits..