Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Has the rover caught a UFO on Mars?


seeder

Recommended Posts

1) What do you think converting from 8 bit JPEG to 24 bit TIFF accomplishes? You can't undo JPEG compression artefacts or improve the original image color depth after the fact by converting from a low quality image format to a higher quality format. Your computer can't invent detail not in the source file by simply converting it to a new format. If the original image is 8-bit grayscale JPEG, then converting to 24-bit colour or 16-bit grayscale or whatever TIFF isn't going to give you extra detail that the original lacked. In fact, if you're not careful, it will introduce after the fact artefacts when you manipulate the image further.

IMAGE TYPES: JPEG & TIFF FILES

Knowing which image type to use ensures you can make the most of your digital photographs. Some image types are best for getting an optimal balance of quality and file size when storing your photos, while other image types enable you to more easily recover from a bad photograph. Countless image formats exist and new ones are always being added; in this section we will focus on options related to the two of the three formats most relevant to digital photography: JPEG and TIFF. The RAW file format is covered in a separate tutorial.

  • cambridge in color link

RAW FILE FORMAT

The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative in film photography: it contains untouched, "raw" pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor. The RAW file format has yet to undergo demosaicing, and so it contains just one red, green, or blue value at each pixel location. Digital cameras normally "develop" this RAW file by converting it into a full color JPEG or TIFF image file, and then store the converted file in your memory card. Digital cameras have to make several interpretive decisions when they develop a RAW file, and so the RAW file format offers you more control over how the final JPEG or TIFF image is generated. This section aims to illustrate the technical advantages of RAW files, and makes suggestions about when to use the RAW file format.

  • cambridge in color link

It all started with whether the 'RAW' files released are in fact RAW extension files ... which they weren't

ANd if one is to examine details in an image file, a jpeg is the least desirable format to base any conclusions from, if the levels of gray is to be regarded as crucial then the the levels of gray has to be extended ... the definition of 'details' here is the crux of the matter ... it is not 'added' levels of grays or added elements ... it is 'filled'

The element of posterization is not natural in nature ...

wiki -

Posterization of an image entails conversion of a continuous gradation of tone to several regions of fewer tones, with abrupt changes from one tone to another. This was originally done with photographic processes to create posters. It can now be done photographically or with digital image processing, and may be deliberate or may be an unintended artifact of color quantization.

Only the 'filters' adds artefacts to images ~ increasing the bit levels or color depths will not introduce artefacts in or with any image formats ...

The 'original' source image file here is the problem if one is to deduce any conclusions based on details garnered from levels of grays found in the image ...

2) What do you mean when you refer to 150/300/600/1200 DPI? Dots per inch is a measure of print resolution and doesn't tell you anything in itself about the actual resolution (in terms of amount of pixels) in the actual image. A 2000x2000 100dpi image and a 2000x2000pixel 200dpi image are the same in terms of pixel detail. An image from a digital camera doesn't have an inherent "DPI" value, apart from the arbitrary 72dpi sometimes embedded in the EXIF data, which means nothing other than setting an arbitrary size for printing. Those DPI numbers you're talking about are effectively meaningless without further information. Also, you shouldn't be resampling the image at all to higher resolutions anyway, unless you're using something like nearest neighbour interpolation as resampling images typically introduces interpolation artefacts that just add gradients and the like which have been generated by the resampling algorithm and which just distorts the original image. It seems like you're resizing the image and looking the result and trying to interpret the stuff added by your computer to the image in order to make sense of the original. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think you're doing this right at all.

It makes for a big difference when 'zoom/enlarge' levels are introduced ...

Resampling algorithm

Bicubic

Resamples images in the Viewer to minimize the raggedness normally associated with image expansion.

Bilinear

Resamples images in the Viewer to produce smooth transitions, but may cause excessive blurring.

Nearest neighbor

Does not apply resampling to images displayed in the Viewer.

and Yes ... I always use nearest neighbor because my graphics setup allows for it ... increase DPI but locked X&Y dimensions/ratios ...

again it makes a big difference in regards to posterization ~ in this case the levels of gray ...

Regardless to the effect of whether I am right or wrong ... I am merely attempting to clear up any misunderstanding ... as I have said on more than numerous occasions .. I care little with all this UFO or ET stuff ... makes no difference to me if they are real or hoaxes ... if they land on the White House tonight or that they have been here all this time ... I'll still go for my pot of coffee and it is all water off a duck to me ... never cared one way nor any other ...

I think he has been reading but understands that you have confused the issue with irrelevant technical issues. that just cloud the discussion. He seems pretty knowledgable when it comes to photography and digital imaging.

What you quoted is not a "digital definition", it's just an attempt of describing of depth of field mathematically, and which has nothing to do with digital vs. optical effects. What's the difference between "digital" depth of field and "optical" depth of field and why do you "prefer" the digital definition?

I know he is ... but the point here is not photography and digital imaging ~ it is using a poor source image to deduce evidences and come to conclusions relying solely on details lacking in low pixels (yes it is 72dpi or internet / browser resolution) and posterized levels of color - in this case the levels of 8bit gray scale ...

I interpret nothing but what is put forward ... and I only point out some weaknesses in the proposal ... it makes no difference ... or do I care if it is accepted or not

BUt don't accuse me of not 'reading' when it is not my reading capacity that is in question ...

Enlarging areas or zooming in to isolated pixels with a 72dpi 8bit jpeg makes for no better case than 'distorting' and 'distortions' FYI

I prefer the 'digital' definition here in this particular case because I am presented solely with digital formats and media from digital image rendering electronics/devices ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can remember watching a documentary when the Russians some years back landed a probe on mars.

There probe caught a picture of an object. If I recall correctly, the object looked like a red streak of light.

Kinda like a red bolt of lightening. Can anyone find that image and post it? I seem to cant find it.

Edited by Hawkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all started with whether the 'RAW' files released are in fact RAW extension files ... which they weren't

*What* started with whether the "RAW" files released are in fact RAW extension files? Please put this kind of claim into some sort of context that others can make sense of.
ANd if one is to examine details in an image file, a jpeg is the least desirable format to base any conclusions from, if the levels of gray is to be regarded as crucial then the the levels of gray has to be extended ... the definition of 'details' here is the crux of the matter ... it is not 'added' levels of grays or added elements ... it is 'filled'
I understand that JPEG images are an undesirable image format to analyse, but I'm also pointing out that if what the Mars rover transmitted was a JPEG image, then it matters not what format might have been theoretically desirable. What we have is a JPEG image and we can't undo the limitations and problems of JPEG images by taking an image that has been sent from a Mars spacecraft as a JPEG and convert it to TIFF and hope to undo the problems that originated from it being sent as a JPEG in the first place. The thing about lossy compression formats like JPEG is that you can't undo the damage done by taking the resulting JPEG and converting it to TIFF after the fact.
The element of posterization is not natural in nature ...
The what of what is what? Huh?
Only the 'filters' adds artefacts to images ~ increasing the bit levels or color depths will not introduce artefacts in or with any image formats ...
I understand that. I just don't understand why you keep discussing and talking about converting 8-bit JPEGs to 24-bit TIFFs. What do you hope to achieve by such conversion? All you've done is take a problematic JPEG image and save it in a format that neither adds or subtracts from the the supposed problems that the original JPEG conversion caused.
The 'original' source image file here is the problem
I agree and I'm telling you that the 'original' source image, if it has problems from being converted to JPEG before being transmitted to earth, those problems can't be undone by 'converting' the image to TIFF, changing the bit depth to 16-bit, etc. You can't undo the damage done by JPEG compression.
It makes for a big difference when 'zoom/enlarge' levels are introduced ...

Resampling algorithm

Bicubic

Resamples images in the Viewer to minimize the raggedness normally associated with image expansion.

Bilinear

Resamples images in the Viewer to produce smooth transitions, but may cause excessive blurring.

Nearest neighbor

What makes for "a big difference" when 'zoom/enlarge" levels are introduced?

Does not apply resampling to images displayed in the Viewer.

<snip more irrelevant talk>

I prefer the 'digital' definition here in this particular case because I am presented solely with digital formats and media from digital image rendering electronics/devices ...

But we're talking about depth of field, something that has nothing to do with digital or optical formats. Whether you're shooting on a digital camera or 35mm film, depth of field is an optical effect caused by lens design, focal length, zoom level, sensor/film size, aperture setting, etc. It's not a digital vs. optical effect and I admit to not being any sort of photographic expert, but I don't understand you insistence on framing it as such a type of effect.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~snip

<snip more irrelevant talk>

~snip

sure thing ... whatever you say man ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

too many mysterious happenings on Mars, way too many for a dead planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

too many mysterious happenings on Mars, way too many for a dead planet.

Would you care to make a list of these strange things?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually thinking of that , let me see what I can do. Will be a separate threat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually thinking of that , let me see what I can do. Will be a separate threat!

Make sure you post a link

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya just had to didn't you???

Well, so far, it is rather dreary and boring. He offers nothing but fantasy and neglects the incredible accomplishment (IMHO) of the Curiosity landing sequence. His number one "weird thing" is the camera catching the rocket pack landing. I riposted the 7 minutes of terror video so we could all cheer this accomplishment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

incredible accomplishment still feels like an understatement to me but i just dont have the words to describe it :tsu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed astonishing accomplishment was that landing, amazing , superb unmatchable. Unfortunately what comes after it, is so much disappointing for me. So many suppositions, guessing, less conclusive data, less exploration, less curiosity, "Earth shaking discoveries" and scientific opinions in general but less data. I am wondering at the end of the year , what exactly did we discovered that we didn't know before?

Put down right now 10 discoveries that the rover made and not known before!

Edited by qxcontinuum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry we didnt find little green men to satisfy your needs...

besides sticking an incredible landing, measuring background radiation that we were unable to do which in turn provides better information to the hazards we will face when we inevitably send people there, bringing more awareness to nasa and future projects, locating ancient stream beds and finding areas that very well could have supported microbial life millions of years ago and being the first thing to EVER take samples from another planet oh i don't know that seems pretty awesome to me and plenty of things that we didn't or were not sure about have been solidified. Along with finding clay minerals as well as sulfur, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, oxygen and hydrogen chemicals in the john klein rock. but hey nothing important about any of that we should be wasting time worrying about photoshopped squirrels in photos right? jesus what do you people expect?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of a few discoveries mentioned were done by the previous probes. I am still looking for something really earth shaking then! Right now it almost looks like no much is happening and when it does there is a typical arrogance answering to public questions . The private sector might land on Mars ahead with a fraction of the cost claimed by Professionals. I guess that has always happened in all the institutions on earth.

Edited by qxcontinuum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you don't believe even half of that is actually incredible and "earth shaking" you yourself will never be pleased and im extremely glad that were not out there to satisfy people like you. sad. pathetic too, but mostly sad. keep looking at your photoshopped squirrel pictures because apparently thats much more interesting to people like you.

Edited by Iron_Lotus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe all the above , because it has been established and known before curiosity, you still don't get my point. Curiosity must be more curious to make every penny worthy as well its complexity in construction. Or perhaps more of its discoveries should be released to the public.

Edited by qxcontinuum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no i got your point you want more than what you got and all you want to do is p*** and moan about how its not enough for you, i got that, its loud and clear. very much like a child who cant have it his way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything else can i do? I was super enchanted by this mission following up every bit of new discovery or picture taken until confuse logics or logistics started taking place causing me disappointment. Then i stopped but every now and then there is a new snapshot or mystery from mars that is top page all over the internet. Of course i can't help reading like the latest rock on Mars. Funny that more read about experts opinions i realize that the alien factor is never put ahead or the unknown is alway "puzzling" but not worth more investigations. It was the rover wheel moving he rock, the rover is shading, the rover's dead pixels, the rover the rover. The only moving entity on Mars surface nailing down the history books. Gotta be right and the only thing! What else, the experts have spoken!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA, like most rational thinking adults, does not think Mars shows any signs of an ancient Martian civilisation, nor does it have any alien beings on the surface, or flying around in it's atmosphere, which I suspect is what some people were hoping to find evidence of. The experiments being conducted are geological in nature, which is going to be very boring to those who are hoping for confirmation of alien intelligence.

The notion that NASA is hiding things from us is absurd, there is no reason in the universe to think that they have discovered anything pertaining to alien intelligence and are not disclosing it. NASA has budget problems, they don't have enough money to do everything they want to do. The release of any photos or evidence of any kind that would suggest the existence another civilisation would solve all of their budget problems.

Isn't it telling that no rovers are near Cydonia? If NASA gave any credence at all to the rediculous notion that there are ancient buildings there, wouldn't they land a craft there and investigate?

It's pretty sad, really, that of all the discoveries they are making, because they don't put emphasis on the "alien factor", it is not exciting enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA, like most rational thinking adults, does not think Mars shows any signs of an ancient Martian civilisation, nor does it have any alien beings on the surface, or flying around in it's atmosphere, which I suspect is what some people were hoping to find evidence of. The experiments being conducted are geological in nature, which is going to be very boring to those who are hoping for confirmation of alien intelligence.

Another thing a lot of people are looking for is evidence that would compel us to send manned probes there. That's why the "face on Mars" and the so-called pyramids around it excited so many people. They were sure subsequent probes would confirm them and find more evidence then 2001 A Space Odyssey would come true.

I've been regularly surprised at how many people believe that the only purpose for these rover missions is to scout the planet for an inevitable manned landing. These pictures and scientific mumbo-jumbo that the NASA eggheads are talking about are so booooriiiing they say. They don't want a single tax dollar spent on studying Mars unless the goal is to send brave humans on an exciting mission to land on the planet. Naturally NASA has to keep coming up with unrealistic plans for manned landings to keep these people interested.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed astonishing accomplishment was that landing, amazing , superb unmatchable. Unfortunately what comes after it, is so much disappointing for me. So many suppositions, guessing, less conclusive data, less exploration, less curiosity, "Earth shaking discoveries" and scientific opinions in general but less data. I am wondering at the end of the year , what exactly did we discovered that we didn't know before?

Put down right now 10 discoveries that the rover made and not known before!

Curiosity's misssion was to determine if Mars could've supported life and I think she has done that already but don't forget that Curiosity is still enroute to its primary target, Mt. Sharp where the meat of the science is to be conducted. Up to now it has been, mostly, getting all its various tools tested and calibrated and miraculously, all of its various tools are operational. There is a follow-up mission with another Curiosity rover chassis bearing a different set of tools that wiill be tasked with finding signs of present and/or past life

Here is an older list of the vehicle's accomplishments http://www.space.com...iscoveries.html

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything else can i do? I was super enchanted by this mission following up every bit of new discovery or picture taken until confuse logics or logistics started taking place causing me disappointment. Then i stopped but every now and then there is a new snapshot or mystery from mars that is top page all over the internet. Of course i can't help reading like the latest rock on Mars. Funny that more read about experts opinions i realize that the alien factor is never put ahead or the unknown is alway "puzzling" but not worth more investigations. It was the rover wheel moving he rock, the rover is shading, the rover's dead pixels, the rover the rover. The only moving entity on Mars surface nailing down the history books. Gotta be right and the only thing! What else, the experts have spoken!

I don't think you "get" NASA. Or their terminology.

You seem to have this strange idea in your head that Mars was once like earth TODAY, and using the widely touted phrase of "Mars Was Earth like in it's early history", which means earth like in earths early history as well. You know, before grass or trees. We had water, rock and sand.

Earthlike means like this:

new-explanation-warming-early-earth_69252_600x450.jpg

Even when the violence settled down, it was more like the Sahara Dessert, not England today.

And that is what "Early Mars" Might have looked like. Large rocky outcrops with possibly large shifting dunes of sand that held bodies of what was probably wine red in colour which was acidic and contained much Iron most likely, that mostly resemble large lakes as opposed to oceans - although one ocean may have existed. There is a hypothesis of a primordial ocean - Oceanus Borealis - but not what you imagine from looking out across the briny blue here on earth. Oceans of magma existed too, but that's nothing like what you are proposing. The Oceanus Borealis would be shallow and highly acidic and the greenhouse gasses would make most places on earth very uncomfortable for most types of life. Especially modern forms that you seem to think managed to get a foothold on Mars.

There was not green fields with Wall Marts and McDonalds. If anything ever existed there, it is unlikely you would recognise it, or be able to even see it immediately because it would be a microbe, not a Mars Jackalope.

I think you ought to read what the experts actually say. It is a fascinating planet, and I agree worthy of attention, but lets not just make stuff up for the sake of a story hey. We have enough people here doing that already.

Even when life finally kicked off, earth looked like:

p00g5snq_640_360.jpg

not like

bamboo-jungle-plants2.jpg

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps more of its discoveries should be released to the public.

What Curiosity discoveries are being kept hidden by NASA and not released to the public? Edited by JesseCuster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.